Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Sheffield Gas Bill.

As amended, considered.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Coventry Extension Bill [Lords] (by Order).

As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wareham Extension) Bill [Lords].

To be printed. [Bill 177.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action it is proposed to take with reference to the decision made by the Wafd in Egypt on 1st March for a boycott of British goods?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): Rumours of such a boycott were current in the local press in Egypt some months ago, but my right bon. Friend has no information to show that any decision of the nature indicated was taken.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that they are not in a position to carry out this boycott whether they want to do so or not?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that there is no foundation at all for this statement that a boycott has been declared?

Oral Answers to Questions — REPARATIONS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL DEBTS.

MR. SNOWDEN'S STATEMENT.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the telegraphic communication addressed to the President of the United States by the German Government on the subject of international indebtedness; and can he state what the terms of the message are?

Mr. DALTON: The text of this message, which was confidential, has not, so far as my right hon. Friend is aware, been published.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make any further statement in regard to the policy of the Government for giving practical effect to President Hoovers proposal relating to reparations and inter-governmental debts?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House on the 22nd instant.
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom subscribe wholeheartedly to the principle of President Hoover's proposal and are prepared to co-operate in the elaboration of details with a view to giving it practical effect without delay.
and with the permission of the House I should like to take this opportunity to explain the steps which we have decided to take for this purpose.
The more consideration we give to the President's declaration, the more it seems to us that, having regard particularly to the history of the matter, that declaration constitutes a very great gesture on the part of the United States of America, and it will be a thousand pities if Europe does not respond to it in the same spirit. The beneficial effect of the proposal may be lost unless steps are taken by all the countries concerned to give it prompt and practical effect.
This is particularly the case as regards Germany, which, after all, is the essential difficulty. We agree with the view expressed by the United States Government that there is no time for a conference. A more prompt method must
be found for putting into operation the proposal of the United States Government for a complete and immediate suspension of German payments to the creditor Governments.
The procedure which we would favour is that the creditor Governments should forthwith notify the Bank for Inter-national Settlements that they agree to the proposal for the suspension for one year of all the German payments due to them. The decision, of course, does not rest with us alone, and we are awaiting the views of the other creditor Governments; but we hope that it may be possible to secure agreement on these lines as soon as possible.
President Hoover's proposal applies, however, to "all inter-governmental debts, reparations and relief debts." His Majesty's Government for their part accept this proposal in the spirit as well as the letter. They will accordingly be ready to suspend for one year all such inter-governmental debts due to them as soon as President Hoover's proposal has been generally accepted, and, in the meantime, as from the 1st proximo they will refrain from claiming instalments that may fall due. As regards the Relief Debts, His Majesty's Government are at once taking steps to inform the other European Governments which hold Relief Bonds of their action and to invite them to co-operate.
Finally, although His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom do not regard President Hoover's proposal as directly affecting the War obligations of the Dominions and of India to the United Kingdom, which are a matter for discussion and settlement between those of His Majesty's Governments concerned, we felt that we should be interpreting the wishes of the country in deciding freely to offer to the Dominions and India the same concession as is proposed for foreign countries under the same conditions.
Accordingly, when inviting the assent of the Dominion Governments and the Government of India to the suspension of the German payments so far as regards the share to which they are entitled, we intimated that on the same principle we would readily give them the option of postponing the whole amount of
their War Debt payments to the United Kingdom for the period of 12 months from the 1st July, 1931, if they so desire.
These proposals will involve a loss to the current Budget which may reach approximately £11,000,000. This is a serious sacrifice for the taxpayers of this country upon whom such heavy calls have already been made, but we hope that the step which we are taking in co-operation with the United States win be more than justified by the help it will give in reviving confidence and prosperity.

Mr. BALDWIN: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, not having bad an opportunity of reading it beforehand, I will content myself with saying, for my own opinion and I believe the opinion of those behind me, that His Majesty's Government have taken a course fully consistent with the dignity and reputation of our country.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would like to add that I am very glad that the Government have given such a clear, courageous and unequivocal answer to the very noble gesture of the United States of America.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to make to the House the statement, which will naturally follow the one which he has just made, in regard to our domestic finance of the present year.?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot give an answer to that question just at the moment. I am afraid we shall have to wait at least for a few days, but I have no objection at once, if a question be put down, to giving a statement as to how it will affect the budgetary position of this country.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent developments, he will reconsider his decision not to initiate an international conference to discuss the whole question of international indebtedness?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I cannot for the present say more than that we are anxious to co-operate in bringing President Hoover's proposal into practical effect.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of recent developments, does not the right
hon. Gentleman think that this is a suitable time for reopening this question?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think it is a most unsuitable time. First of all, we must settle the matter of these proposals, and, if circumstances should eventually develop as to make an international conference desirable, no doubt action would be taken.

MACEDONIA (PETITIONS).

Mr. BEN RILEY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information with regard to two petitions sent to the secretary to the League of Nations in April of this year by two natives of Macedonia named Andoff and Minoff, respectively, who were on a visit last year to their native town of Prilep, in Macedonia, and from which, as they allege, they were expelled contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of St. Germain; if so, whether he can state if these two petitions have been declared receivable; and, if not, the reason given for such decision?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has received no information as to the submission of these two petitions to the Secretariat of the League of Nations, but he is making inquiries.

Mr. RILEY: Is a reply expected soon?

MR. DALTON: We may not get a reply very soon, because there is a certain regular procedure which has to be gone through, but as soon as we get a reply I will let my hon. Friend know.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

EASTERN RAILWAY.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House as to the present state of the negotiations opened by the Chinese Government for selling the Chinese Eastern Railway to another Power?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend understands that negotiations for the purchase by the Chinese Government of
the Soviet Government's share in this railway have been opened, but he has no official information on the subject.

Mr. SAMUEL: Can the hon. Gentleman find out whether there have been any proposals for Customs reductions on the Manchurian frontier where this railway touches?

Mr. DALTON: This is, of course, primarily a matter between the Chinese Government and the Soviet Government. We have no locus standi in the matter, but we can inquire whether any such proposals have been made. These negotiations are not being conducted openly, but we may be able to get some information about this point.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman find out whether these Customs reductions will operate against British goods in view of the fact that the goods will come from the Russian side?

Mr. DALTON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question on the subject.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Do not these negotiations show rather a bad record?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir.

CUSTOMS (SEIZURE).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Canton Government have now seized the Customs at Kowloon, Lapfa, Kongmoon, Samshui, Kiungshow, Pakhoi, and Hoihow; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has seen statements in the Press to this effect, but he has received no official reports on the subject. In any case, no action by His Majesty's Government seems to be called for.

Sir K. WOOD: May I ask whether the Foreign Secretary proposes to make any inquiries in this matter?

Mr. DALTON: I do not think that is necessary. Sir Miles Lampson has kept us fully informed of what has been happening in Canton, and, if there be any truth in these Press allegations, no doubt he will let us know.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Commander SOUTHBY: 6.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Majesty's Government have considered, or are considering, the advisability of increasing the cruiser and destroyer building programmes of this country, in view of the increased naval building programmes of France and Italy and the continued failure of those countries to reach agreement, and having regard to the special provisions of Article 21 of the London Naval Treaty?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The building programme has been continually under consideration throughout the Franco-Italian negotiations. As it is hoped that an opportunity may soon arise to continue these negotiations, His Majesty's Government do not consider that the situation at present warrants any increase in the building programmes already approved by Parliament.

Commander SOUTHBY: What exactly does the right hon. Gentleman mean by soon? How soon?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the position with regard to naval shipbuilding in France following on the action taken on the naval programme?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have no information other than that which has appeared in the Press, from which it would seem that the French naval programme for 1931–32 is still under consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the Press report show that the French anticipated programme is not to be proceeded with? Has there not been some considerable reduction?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the Press reports show the programme as having been referred back, and, therefore, for the time being part of the credits which have been made have been withdrawn.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not that mean that, whereas the French Government were going to construct a 23,000-ton ship, this will not be proceeded with for the present?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I should like to await confirmation of that after the
further consideration by the French Government.

Commander SOUTHBY: Is it not a fact that a considerable increase is foreshadowed?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "POSEIDON."

Sir CYRIL COBB: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any expectation of His Majesty's Submarine "Poseidon" being salved and eventually rejoining the Fleet; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to replace this submarine by a new vessel in accordance with Annex I, Section III of the London Naval Treaty?

Mr. ALEXANDER: All salvage operations have been definitely abandoned, as the submarine was reported to be rapidly sinking into soft mud at a depth of 120 feet and the exposed position seriously hampered the work of divers. The question of the replacement of the tonnage represented by the loss of "Poseidon" will be considered at the proper time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not be better to await the result of the conference in the hope that submarines will be abolished by international agreement?

Mr. DAY: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any further statement in regard to the circumstances in connection with the loss of the submarine His Majesty's Submarine "Poseidon"?

Mr. ALEXANDER: No further details are available, and it will probably not be possible to make any statement until the full report of the circumstances is received from the Commander-in-Chief, China Station.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the incidence of tuberculosis amongst naval ratings serving with His Majesty's vessels at sea; and whether he has any information as to the circumstances in which 13 new infections were notified in His Majesty's Ship "Warspite" since the vessel was recommissioned?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The answer to the first part of the question is approximately three per 1,000. In spite of careful investigation, no definite reason has been ascertained to account for the relatively high incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis in "Warspite" during 1929. It can only be assumed that it was due to fortuitious circumstances which is borne out by the fact that in 1930 only one case occurred in this ship.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that investigations are proceeded with in order to arrive at some solution of this matter?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the medical authorities of the Navy have already made all possible investigations. As I have pointed out, these cases seem to have been more or less unavoidable in that particular year. The following year there was only one case in the whole ship.

SICK-BERTH STAFFS (LEAVE).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any additional leave has been granted to the sick-berth staffs of Haslar, Stonehouse, and Chatham Royal Naval Hospitals, to compensate them for the extra duty entailed by long leave last Christmas; and, if so, what additional leave has been granted?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "RENOWN."

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that His Majesty's Ship "Renown" is not to be refitted until after her second leave, he will consider the possibility, in order to give the crew longer time with their wives and families in Devonport, of arranging for her to go to Devonport first and give leave from there and then proceed to Portsmouth for refit?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I regret that it is not possible for His Majesty's Ship "Renown" to visit Devonport to give leave before proceeding to Portsmouth for refit, as the vessel is to be taken in hand on arrival at Portsmouth on 17th July. The extent of the rent precludes any delay in the commencement of work.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great privation
is put upon families now, especially with the marriage allowance reduced, in having to pay these railway fares from Portsmouth to Devonport?

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is a very old question which has often been answered before, and I am unable to revise the previous decisions. The hon. Member also seems to think that it applies only to people who happen to live in the port where a ship is commissioned. There are always people on board ship who have to go all over the country to see their relatives. There is no greater hardship in the case of the hon. Member's constituents than there is in the case of ratings who live in other places.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Then why cannot the Admiralty pay railway fares wherever they live?

DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (REDUCTIONS AND DISCHARGES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the reduction by 23, during the months of April and May, in the number of established men employed in Devonport Dockyard was due to their retirement on pension; and whether the numbers are to be made up?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Reductions in the numbers of established workpeople were caused by death, superannuation and invaliding; except in those grades, to which appointment carries establishment, transfers of hired employés to the established list are made in the proportion of one appointment to six posts vacated.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the reasons for the discharge of 487 hired men from Devonport Dockyard during the months of April and May; and whether any further reductions are contemplated?

Mr. ALEXANDER: During April and May, apart from temporary or casual employment, 65 workpeople were entered at Devonport Dockyard and 15 were discharged on reduction, and there was a natural wastage of 43.

MAURITIUS.

Mr. McSHANE: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether he will make available for Members the recommendations of the Mauritius Committee on Poor Law administration?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr Drummond Shiels): The report of the Commission has not yet reached the Secretary of State, but it is expected in a few weeks, and my Noble Friend will then consider the suggestion in my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. McSHANE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make available for Members the Report on Mauritius by Kunwar Maharaj Singh?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): A copy of the report was placed in the Library of the House in February, 1927.

CYPRUS.

Mr. McSHANE: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report of the Cyprian Committee will be completed?

Dr. SHIELS: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the committee which has been appointed to consider economies in the Cyprus Estimates. My Noble Friend is not in a position to say when the report of that committee will be received.

Mr. McSHANE: Can my hon. Friend state whether the report will be made available for Members of the House?

Dr. SHIELS: I shall be glad to consider that question.

KENYA (MOTOR LORRIES).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the reasons for the proposed increase of licence fees on motor lorries in Kenya, and the difference in amount between the old and the newly proposed fees?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend is asking the Governor of Kenya to report upon the matter. I will communicate with the hon. Member when the report has been received.

DOMINICA (DISTURBANCES).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state the result of the inquiry by the Commission appointed to inquire into recent disturbances in the Carib reserve in Dominica?

Dr. SHIELS: The Commission commenced its sittings on or about the 11th May. No report of its proceedings has yet been received in the Colonial Office.

CEYLON LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what reason has been given by the leaders of the Indians in Jaffna and the northern provinces of Ceylon for their boycott of elections under the new constitution; and what steps will now be taken under the new constitution to secure some representation of the Indian community in Ceylon on the legislative council?

Dr. SHIELS: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman refers to the fact that no nomination papers were handed in for the four constituencies in the Jaffna peninsula, where the population consists predominantly of Ceylon Tamils, who are not regarded as Indians. I understand that the reason given by the persons responsible for this step was that the new constitution marks no advance towards self-government. With regard to the last part of the question, I would point out that under the new constitution, which follows in this respect the recommendations of the Donoughmore Commission, all communal representation has been abolished. No steps are contemplated for giving special representation to the Indian or any other community.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that the principal reason why the Tamils in the Northern part of Ceylon have boycotted the election is because they have been deprived of communal representation and put on the common roll with other races?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. I do not think that that is an accurate statement. As a matter of fact, there are other Tamil candidates standing at the present time, and there are over 46 constituencies which are open to representatives of all races.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: is it not a fact that the Tamil population in the north are Hindus, and does not the same condition affect Tamils in the Western Province?

Dr. SHIELS: There is a distinction between the Indians and Ceylon Tamils, and the boycott has been confined to the four constituencies in the Jaffna district.

HONG KONG (CIVIL SERVANTS' PAY).

Mr. EVERARD: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the petitions addressed to his Department from the civil servants in Hong Kong with reference to their payment on a dollar basis have been considered; and, if so, what action is being taken?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has requested the Governor to inform the petitioners that he is unable in the meantime to revert to the former method of payment, but that he will review the position in the light of the Currency Commissioners' recent report, when the representations made by the petitioners will be carefully borne in mind, although no promise can be made that the decision will be varied.

Mr. EVERARD: As I understand that the petitions have been received, cannot they be laid on the Table of the House?

Dr. SHIELS: I will convey that request to my Noble Friend.

IMPERIAL AIR ROUTES (INDIA).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what preparations are being made for the survey of air-travel routes throughout the British Empire; and whether he will initiate a series of such surveys with a view to the consolidation of the means of air transport within the Empire?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that the subject of Imperial air routes is kept in view as a comprehensive whole. Surveys of this nature necessarily entail cooperation between the parts of the Empire
involved and, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, are made when there is evidence that a new route has become practicable and desirable. The cost of carrying out a series of surveys in advance of a probable demand would not be justified.

Captain MACDONALD: Would it not be better to increase our endeavours, seeing that other countries are constantly carrying out surveys with a view-to establishing routes over our territories?

Mr. MONTAGUE: All the same, I think that the hon. and gallant Member knows that this year we shall be in advance of other countries as far as Imperial air routes are concerned.

Captain MACDONALD: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the Indian Government have placed obstacles in the way of aircraft flying over Indian territory unless they are Indian machines with Indian pilots; and what steps he is taking to secure the uninterrupted development of air-routes throughout the British Empire?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I am unaware that the Indian Government have placed obstacles in the way of flight over Indian territory. In regard to air transport services, however, I understand it would be contrary to their policy to subsidise any company other than an Indian Company with rupee capital and Indian personnel. As regards the second part of the question my Noble Friend is fully alive to the importance of continuous development of air routes throughout the Empire and the policy of his Department is directed towards this end.

Captain MACDONALD: Has the attention of the hen. Member been called to a recent statement made by Mr. Scott that the Indian Government placed every obstacle in the way of establishing air routes between Australia and this country, and does he think that that statement is true?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I think that the question is one for the India Office rather than for me.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has my hon. Friend seen the report in the "Times" to-day, that all expenditure on civil aviation in India is to be suspended, and is that true?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I have not seen the report in the "Times," but I will look it up and see if there is anything I need say to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ST. HELENS CANAL.

Mr. ATKINSON: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of his warrant authorising the abandonment by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company of a total length of five miles or thereabouts of the St. Helens Canal and of his Order, dated 21st May, 1931, ordering that the company shall be released from all liability to maintain the said portion of St. Helens Canal and from other statutory obligations he has made or proposes to make any Order preserving the responsibility of the company or imposing on any other person or authority responsibility for damage by escape of water through, under, or over the canal banks, or for accidents owing to the unprotected state of the canal, or the ruinous state of locks, or for other injuries arising in consequence of such abandonment?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have no power to make any Order with regard to the matters to which the hon. Member refers in the last part of his question.

Mr. ATKINSON: Did the right hon. Gentleman consider, when he made his Order of the 21st May, 1931, the danger it would cause by leaving five miles of canal without anybody being responsible for keeping it in order. Is he not aware that there has been a considerable amount of apprehension about it in the neighbourhood?

Mr. MORRISON: I understand that to be so, but I have no power in the matter. I am informed that disputes in regard to the matter referred to would fall to be determined, if necessary, by the courts.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand that a stretch of a canal of this character is to be left as part of "no man's land," and that any damage which may arise will not fall upon the present owners?

Mr. MORRISON: I cannot say that it is to be presumed that any particular decision would be come to by the courts.

Mr. ATKINSON: Is not this necessarily the result of the Order made by the Minister?

Mr. MORRISON: I do not think that that should be assumed, or that it necessarily follows.

ROAD GRANTS.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport why, although the council of an urban district with a population of under 20,000 has volunteered to make a contribution towards the cost of the improvement of a county road in its area, he has refused to make a grant in respect of this contribution; and whether he will reconsider his decision?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: My reason for declining to consider as grant-earning expenditure contributions from urban district councils of a population under 20,000 towards the cost of the improvement of county roads in their areas involves a long explanation which is fully set out in a letter which I caused to be addressed to the County Council's Association on the 11th of this month. I am sending a copy of this letter to the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but does he realise that in regard to a seaside town, where perhaps the census is taken in the winter, the population is very often below 20,000, whereas in the summer they have to cater for a much larger number? Will he take that fact into consideration?

Mr. MORRISON: That is so. I have to determine the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, which mentions the figure of 20,000 population arrived at, I believe, by the census.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: is it not in order for these authorities to make grants to the County Council?

Mr. MORRISON: I am advised that it is not competent for me to accept the offer of the urban district council and to make a grant in that respect. The matter is one of some complication, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will receive from me a copy of a three-page letter on the subject which sets out the pros and cons.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is this the first evidence of the Department of the right hon. Gentleman that no further expenditure is to be incurred in this road development?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir, I do not think it relates to that. It relates to the provision of the Local Government Act, 1929.

BROKEN ROAD STONE.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport the total quantity of broken road stone used annually by local authorities?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have no information respecting the total quantity of broken road stone used annually by Local Authorities. It may be stated, however, that the total tonnage of road stone conveyed over the railways in Great Britain during the year 1930 was little short of 9,000,000 tons, to which must be added materials conveyed by other means of transport.

Mr. WILLIAMS: How does the right hon. Gentleman know that the foreign proportion is very small?

Mr. MORRISON: I should require notice of that question. I am satisfied that the proportion which the local authorities are using from foreign sources is in fact very small.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman informed the House the other day that it was very small, and now he says that he does not know what is the total amount.

Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Gentleman must distinguish between my satisfaction that the proportion is small, and my capacity to give a precise figure.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is it not a fact that the figures of foreign imports are easily available to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir, they are not easily available in precise form.

GRANITE KERB.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to state when the first report will be received from the joint committee of producers and users now considering the supply of, and demand for, granite kerb?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I under stand that a further meeting of the committee is to take place on the 1st July, but I cannot say how soon a report will be presented.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman hurry up this matter, seeing that there is a shortage of labour?

Mr. MORRISON: We always hurry up things, but I am not in complete control of the deliberations of the committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman hurry quickly instead of hurrying slowly?

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport if ha has any estimate of the amount of the cost already incurred for legal and similar charges and expenses in promoting and opposing the Humber Bridge Bill to date; and how and in what proportion these costs are to be met and by whom?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not in a position to furnish an estimate of the costs for legal and similar charges and expenses incurred to date by the promoters of the Humber Bridge Bill, and I have no knowledge of the similar expenses incurred by the parties opposing the Bill. A grant of 75 percent. has been indicated from the Road Fund in respect of the total approved expenditure on the bridge scheme, including the legal, etc., costs incurred by the promoters. The remaining 25 per cent. will be defrayed partly by the contributions which certain local authorities have undertaken to make, and any balance remaining will be raised by means of tolls.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman is defraying 75 percent. of the legal charges, has he no check on the amount of those charges?

Mr. MORRISON: Once a Bill is before a Committee of Parliament the promoters cannot very well control the expenses to which they are put. The expenses must depend upon the amount of opposition. The Committee could, if they were so minded and if they were unanimously agreed, decide that, if the opponents were frivolous, the whole of the expenses of the promoters should be
charged against the opponents, but there are few precedents for that course.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would it be possible to obtain these figures for the edification of the public?

Mr. MORRISON: I doubt it, but I agree that it would be an edification if they were secured.

Major HARVEY: How did this information get to the hon. and gallant Member, seeing that the Committee only gave their decision on this ease yesterday?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On Monday.

ROAD SURFACE MATERIAL (RUBBER).

Sir GEORGE PENNY: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the rubber roadways laid down near Blackfriars Bridge and Old Kensington Road have proved satisfactory; if so, whether he will see that further rubber stretches are laid down in various parts of London; and will he state if he has any evidence that rubber horseshoes have proved satisfactory where tried?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): I am watching the experiments to which the hon. Member refers with interest in the hope that before long some definite opinion may be formed as to the durability and general merits of rubber as a surfacing material, relative to its cost. I am prepared to consider applications from competent highway authorities for an extension of these experiments in suitable localities. The information in my possession does not enable me to express an opinion upon the merits of rubber horseshoes.

Sir G. PENNY: May I ask whether experiments are not being made in the laying of roads in Malaya, and, bearing in mind the great distress prevailing among the planters there, will the Minister keep in close touch with regard to the results of this experiment?

Mr. PARKINSON: My right bon. Friend is taking a keen interest in these matters, and he is watching all the experiments which are taking place.

Mr. EVERARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that there
are many people unemployed in the granite set industry in this country, and will he always give consideration to that industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION.

Mr. SCOTT: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the contents and purpose of H 3 Schedule, and when it was instituted by the Scottish Education Department; how many were issued and completed last year; whether the results of the schedules are brought under the notice of members of education committees; and whether he will publish these results?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): Form H 3 states the results in the separate subjects of the leaving certificate examination, and is addressed to the official correspondent of the school. It was first used in 1896, and in 1930 it was issued to 219 schools. In the case of a school conducted by an education authority it is for the authority to decide whether the results should be brought to the notice of members of the education committee. My right hon. Friend does not consider that publication of the results by the Department would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. SCOTT: Does the hon. Member not understand that if the members of education committees and the public do not know the results under Schedule H 3 they are working very much in the dark?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I have already pointed out that an education authority can itself determine when the members shall have the reports before them.

Mr. SCOTT: Do these schedules show what number of pupils qualify for the entrance examination?

Mr. WESTWOOD: Schedule H 3 merely gives the details as to the separate subjects passed by the students.

STREET FOOTBALL (PROSECUTIONS, GLASGOW).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider the sentences passed on Edward Linn, Bernard Coyle, and William McKelvie, all aged about nine years, at
the Glasgow Southern Court on 18th June of a fine of 7s. 6d. or five days' imprisonment for playing football on the streets; and, seeing that the parents have only either unemployment insurance benefit or Poor Law relief and cannot pay this fine and that they have been warned that they will be arrested on the 25th June failing the payment of the fines, whether he will review the whole circumstances of this case with a view to mitigation of the sentences on these boys and the relief of the parents also from the consequences?

Mr. WESTWOOD: My right hon. Friend is informed that these children were not charged with playing football on the street-s, but with wilfully and maliciously breaking seven panes of glass in a shop window, and two panes of glass in another window, with atones or other missiles, and that they all pled guilty. He is informed that the parents have not been warned that they will be arrested on the 25th June. In view of the discrepancies between the information supplied to him and the statements in the question he is having further inquiry made.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am informed that it is the fact that the children were playing football and that the windows were broken, but in view of the fact that the children are only nine years of age, that the parents cannot pay the fines and that it will involve starvation on the families, will the hon. Member ask that the sentence and fine shall be reviewed? If the fine is enforced, it means that the brothers of these children must starve.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I have given an assurance that we are having further immediate inquiries made with a view to satisfying ourselves that it is possible to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member in his supplementary question.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Were these children using the shop windows as goal posts? Would it not be better to have playing-fields, untaxed?

Miss LEE: Will the Secretary of State for Scotland use his influence that where there are no playing-fields in the crowded areas to see, while they are in the process of providing the playing-fields, at least——[Interruption.]

FLOUR (PRICE).

Sir K. WOOD: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Council have yet made a report on the new scale of the price of flour?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): No, Sir.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will have the information?

Mr. SMITH: As I have informed the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion, the council met on the 19th instant, and I understand that the report is in process of preparation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTED JOINERY.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps or proceedings are being taken with a view to the marking of foreign doors and joinery with an indication of origin under the Merchandise Marks Act?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on the 16th April. No application for the marking of imported doors and joinery has been received by the Board of Trade.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the hon. Member ask his right hon. Friend to be prepared for an application in the near future, very heavily backed by the trade?

Mr. SMITH: The Board of Trade is always prepared.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: But will always be prejudiced.

FOREIGN SHIPBUILDING (CREDIT FACILITIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state which foreign Governments give credit facilities to their nationals for the building or sale of merchant ships?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The following are the principal foreign countries in which there are State credit facilities for shipbuilding: France, Germany, Italy, Norway, and the United States. I am not
aware of any case in which State credit facilities exist for the sale of secondhand merchant ships abroad.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SOUND FILMS.

Mr. MANDER: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education what steps are being taken to make use of talking films for educational purposes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): Experiments with sound film apparatus have recently been made in a number of schools in Middlesex, but my right hon. Friend is not aware that any other steps are being taken in the matter.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that the Board of Education is generally sympathetic towards the development of sound films for educational purposes?

Mr. JONES: Yes, the hon. Member may take it that we are watching this experiment with great interest, but before sanctioning any expenditure the question of suitability must be determined.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: May I ask whether any real advance has been made in the use of cinematograph films for educational purposes?

Mr. JONES: As far as I know, the Middlesex experiment is the only one that has been made.

Mrs. MANNING: Are we to be encouraged to understand that the Board of Education will aid the production of suitable films for this purpose, or are they only buying the apparatus?

Mr. JONES: We must get satisfactory information as to the suitability of the sound apparatus before we discuss the question of the purchase.

Mrs. MANNING: Is the hon. Member aware that the difficulty is in finding suitable films because the market is so restricted that the producers will not produce films that are suitable?

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Can the hon. Gentleman promise that all
the equipment required will be manufactured in Britain?

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask whether any instruction has been sent or whether the Department is bringing to the notice of directors of education the desirability when new schools are being built of making provision for projectors and screens, so that this type of education may be developed?

Mr. JONES: The question of suitability must first be determined before we embark on an expenditure of that kind.

TEACHERS (LEAVE OF ABSENCE).

Lieut. - Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE (for Sir GERALD HURST): 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will issue regulations to the effect that no masters or teachers of schools under his Department's control shall obtain leave of absence in term time in order to engage in political propaganda or take part in political meetings; and whether he is aware that such a case occurred in the recent Ardwick by-election when the headmaster of St. Patrick's school, Carlisle, left his own school during a working week for the purpose of canvassing, among other school teachers and of speaking at party meetings in Ardwick, Manchester?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: It is for local education authorities or governing bodies, whose servants school teachers are, to deal with applications from teachers for leave of absence during term time, and my right hon. Friend does not propose to interfere with their discretion in this respect. He has no information of the case to which the hon. Member refers, beyond the statement in the Press.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease being traceable to Irish cattle imported into Great Britain, he will institute inquiries as to the present system of inspection of Irish cattle before shipment and consider as to the appointment of British veterinary officers at the Irish ports to inspect all shipments of cattle from Ireland to British ports?

Mr. CHARLETON (Lord of the Treasury): All animals brought to Great Britain from Northern Ireland or the Irish Free State are required to be shipped from specified ports only and to be accompanied by a certificate of a veterinary officer appointed by the respective Government to the effect that the animals were inspected by him immediately prior to shipment and found free from disease. My right hon. Friend is satisfied from the inquiries which he has made that the animals which were responsible for the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease into this country on the 11th June showed no clinical evidence of foot-and-mouth disease when examined either at the ports of shipment in Ireland or at the landing places in this country.

Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. Member convey to the Minister the fact that there is a strong feeling that the general system of inspection should be reconsidered with a view to further precautions being taken?

Mr. CHARLETON: Certainly.

Mr. SKELTON: Does not this show the necessity of having a proper period of quarantine so that our herds shall not be infected from the lower-class herds in Ireland?

Mr. CHARLETON: That is beyond me.

Mr. MILLAR: 47.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the latest developments in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland; the number of districts affected; the number of cases in which the existence of the disease has been confirmed; and the number of animals destroyed?

Mr. CHARLETON: Since ray right hon. Friend's statement in this House on Monday, two further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have been confirmed in Scotland, one at Scone and the other at Kinrossie, both in the county of Perth and Kinross. Fifty-five cattle, 127 sheep and six pigs have been destroyed in connection with these cases. No extension of the existing infected areas in Scotland was necessitated by these further outbreaks.

Mr. MILLAR: Do I understand that these are later figures; or is the hon. Member simply repeating what was stated on Monday?

Mr. CHARLETON: My reply says "Since my right hon. Friend's statement."

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. McGOVERN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to introduce legislation for the abolition of the House of Lords?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The Government certainly hope to bring the question of the House of Lords to an issue and when the time comes will ask for power to do so.

Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the recent performances of that House——[Interruption].

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.

Mr. McGOVERN: And in view of the fact that, owing to recent decisions, four-fifths of this party are committed to this issue, will the right hon. Gentleman confer with the other fifth of the party to see whether they are in favour?

Mr. McSHANE: May I ask whether formal notice is to be sent to the House of Lords of the decision of the Government?

PEISONERS (CLOSE CONFINEMENT).

Mr. FREEMAN: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of persons who were placed in close confinement during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1930; the number of such persons confined for three days and under, four to 13 days, 14 to 20 days, 21 to 27 days, and 28 days or over, if any; the main causes for such treatment; whether he is satisfied with the necessity for dealing with them in this way; and whether he has any evidence that this form of treatment has the effect of curing the delinquents of their undesirable tendencies?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available, but in each annual report of the Prison Commissioners there is a return of the number of punishments imposed at each
prison and of the number and kind of offences; and this return shows the number of cases of close confinement. The number of prisoners who have to be punished for prison offences is comparatively small—about 4 per cent. of the total; but some methods of enforcing prison discipline are necessary and it is not practicable to dispense with the method of close confinement. For example, if a man refuses to work or disturbs a workshop by disorderly behaviour, he cannot be left in an associated working party and must be confined in his cell for a time.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is it not a fact that prisoners in convict prisons have to pass the first month of their confinement, and every additional punishment for breaches of prison discipline, in solitary confinement and are not allowed to speak to any other prisoner?

Mr. SHORT: I think the hon. Member is misinformed.

Mr. FREEMAN: Will my hon. Friend make inquiries to ascertain whether it is not the fact. Is this not the only country which adopts this system of solitary confinement?

CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Captain W. G. HALL: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is yet in a position to state when the Civil Service Commission's Report on the conditions and pensions of workers in His Majesty's Dockyards will be available?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I cannot yet add anything to the statement which I made on the 2nd June in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen).

TRADE BOARD ACTS.

Mr. MANDER: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour what additional inspectors have been appointed since the present Government took office in connection with the administration of the Trade Boards Acts?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): Nine additional inspectors are so employed at the present time.

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: Is the hen. Member aware that there are a large number of breaches of the Trade Boards Act, and, as a result, thousands of people are suffering loss of wages to which they are entitled; and will he consider the appointment of many more inspectors to put an end to this scandal?

Mr. LAWSON: I am not aware that there are a large number of breaches of the Trade Boards Act, and, if the hon. Member has any cases in mind, the Minister of Labour will be pleased to have them investigated. As a matter of fact, the inspections for 1930 were considerably more than those of the previous year.

UNEMPLOYMENT (BRIGHTON).

Sir C. RAWSON: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour what action she proposes to take with regard to the resolution passed at a meeting of ratepayers at Brighton on the 14th of June, and sent to her by them, protesting against men being transferred from other areas to Brighton to carry out work, so that the Brighton unemployed should have the opportunity of doing this work?

Mr. LAWSON: My right hon. Friend has received the resolution referred to. She does not propose to take any action in the matter.

Sir C. RAWSON: Will the hon. Member say why not?

Mr. LAWSON: I have investigated this matter very closely, and I am sure that the meeting was not a representative meeting; and I am also sure that the hon. and gallant Member would agree with me if he knew the whole of the facts.

Sir C. RAWSON: I do not agree.

WAGES.

Sir K. WOOD: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she can give the House any information which she has at her disposal in relation to the present rates of money wages as compared with
the cost of living, giving, approximately, the amount by which the fall in the cost of living exceeds the reduction in the present rate of wages?

Mr. LAWSON: During the past 12 months, the official index figure relating to changes in the average level of working-class cost of living has fallen by about 6 percent. The average reduction, during the same period, in rates of money wages for a full week is estimated to have been about 1 percent.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that since 1920 working-class wages have been reduced by 30 per cent. on account of the cost of living and that these reductions are still in force? Will the hon. Member put it to the Cabinet that they should turn their attention to those who lent money to carry on the War and who are now drawing their profits? There bas been no reduction in their payments.

COAL INDUSTRY (STOPPAGE, LANAEKSHIRE).

Miss LEE: (by private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he could give any information regarding the stoppage of seven pits employing 2,000 men in the Shotts area of Lanarkshire?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I regret that in the short time at my disposal since my hon. Friend announced her intention to put this question it has not been possible to ascertain the facts. If my hon. Friend will put a question on the Paper, I will endeavour to answer it.

Miss LEE: In thanking the Secretary for Mines for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that a public statement has been made by the Coltness Iron and Coal Company that the reason for the stoppage was the working of the quota system? Will the Secretary for Mines issue an official reply to that statement?

Mr. SHINWELL: Certainly, when we have investgiated the causes of this stoppage and have ascertained whether there is any truth in the allegation made by the company.

HOLTON COEDITE FACTORY (EXPLOSION).

Mr. GLASSEY: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to give any
further information concerning the explosion at Holton Heath Naval Cordite factory?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I much regret to have to inform the House that an explosion occurred in one of the nitroglycerine houses at the Royal Naval Cordite Factory, Holton Heath, at 10.43 a.m. on Tuesday and caused the death of 10 persons; 19 minor injuries were reported, three of which were fractures and were sent to hospital; the remainder were cuts and small fractures, shock and one acid burn. Very considerable damage was caused as the explosion in the nitroglycerine house followed down the gutter ways by which the nitroglycerine is conveyed to other houses in the course of its treatment, and this resulted in the demolition of three other houses and damage to another. Damage was also caused to an acid pipe, which resulted in a large quantity of mixed acid flowing down the hill where the tanks are situated, making it difficult to deal with small fires at various points.
This nitroglycerine house was reconstructed last year, when opportunity was taken to raise some of the traverses in order to give better protection against a possible accident of this kind. These traverses proved very effective in reducing the general effect of the explosion. The houses are purposely of light structure for greater safety, so that their destruction by such an explosion was to be expected.
Every possible step was taken at once by the factory fire brigade and staff to deal with the situation and extinguish fires. The probable cause of the explosion has not yet been definitely reported, but is already under investigation locally and will be the subject of an official inquiry as soon as possible. The nitroglycerine mixing houses are necessarily a dangerous point in the factory, but every possible precaution both in the layout and manner of working is taken to minimise risk. I am sure the House would wish to express sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives, and with the injured.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Joseph Henderson, esquire, for the Borough of Manchester (Ardwick Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put:

"That the Proceedings on the Mauritius Loan (Guarantee) Bill be exempted, at this

day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 118.

Division No. 348.]
AYES.
[3.44 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mathers, George


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Matters, L. W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, James


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. v. (Hillsbro')
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Millar, J. D.


Alpass, J. H.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mills, J. E.


Amman, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Milner, Major J.


Arnott, John
Harbord, A.
Montague, Frederick


Aske, Sir Robert
Harris, Percy A.
Morley, Ralph


Attlee, Clement Richard
Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Ayles, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Mort, D. L.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hayes, John Henry
Muff, G.


Barr, James
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Murnin, Hugh


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Herriotts, J.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Benson, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oldfield, J. R.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Blindell, James
Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Bowen, J. W.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palin, John Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Paling, Wilfrid


Broad, Francis Alfred
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palmer, E. T.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brooke, W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Brothers, M.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pole, Major D. G.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Potts, John S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Price, M. P.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.


Burgess, F. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cameron, A. G.
Kinley, J.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Raynes, W. H.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Knight, Holford
Richards, R.


Chater, Daniel
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Church, Major A. G.
Lang, Gordon
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Clarke, J. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cluse, W. S.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ritson, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawrence, Susan
Romeril, H. G.


Cove, William G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cowan, D. M.
Lawson, John James
Rowson, Guy


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Daggar, George
Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lees, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Day, Harry
Leonard, W.
Sandham, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Duncan, Charles
Lindley, Fred W.
Scott, James


Ede, James Chuter
Logan, David Gilbert
Scurr, John


Edge, Sir William
Longbottom, A. W.
Sexton, Sir James


Edmunds, J. E.
Longden, F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Freeman, Peter
Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shield, George William


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McElwee, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
McEntee, V. L.
Shillaker, J. F.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettieston)
Shinwell, E.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McKinlay, A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gibbins, Joseph
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Simmons, C. J.


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gill, T. H.
MacNelli-Weir, L.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Glassey, A. E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sinkinson, George


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Sitch, Charles H.


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Manning, E. L.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Gray, Milner
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
March, S
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marcus, M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marley, J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Groves, Thomas E.
Marshall, Fred
Stamford, Thomas W.


Stephen, Campbell
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Strauss, G. R.
Watkins, F. C.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Sullivan, J.
Watson, W. M. (DunferMilne)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sutton, J. E
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllife)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Tillett, Ben
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Tinker, John Joseph
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Toole, Joseph
West, F. R.
Wise, E. F.


Tout, W. J.
Westwood, Joseph
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Vaughan, David
White, H. G.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)



Walker, J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wallace, H. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Everard, W. Lindsay
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Albery, Irving James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Allen, Sir J. Sandemsn (Liverp'l., W.)
Ferguson, Sir John
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Flson, F. G. Clavering
Savery, S. S.


Atkinson, C.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Skelton, A. N.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Somerset, Thomas


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Boyce, Leslie
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Southby, Commander A. R. J


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hartington, Marquess of
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm-, W.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thompson, Luke


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Christle, J. A.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Colfox, Major William Philip
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Colville, Major D. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, Sydney R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Marjoribanks, Edward
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Muirhead, A. J.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Cunilffe-Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Withers, Sir John James


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Penny, Sir George
Womersley, W. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Dawson, Sir Philip
Ramsbotham, H.



Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Eden, Captain Anthony
Remer, John R.
Sir Frederick Thomson.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Hackney Borough Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ROMFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 23rd June.]

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — POSTPONED CLAUSE 19.— (Exemptions.)

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) is owned by any society, body of trustees, or company established for the purpose of, or amongst whose purposes or powers are included those of constructing, or facilitating, or encouraging the construction of dwelling houses for the working classes, being a society, body of trustees, or company which does not trade for profit,
During the last 10 years numerous schemes have been debated in this House and various Bills involving great expense to the public have been passed to improve the housing of the nation. This Amendment arises from the efforts of certain people to assist the housing question for the last 60 years. The first big effort in this connection was made by a well known merchant, Mr. Peabody, in London. He founded the Peabody Fund, with which I have been associated for 20 years, and he also founded the banking firms of Morgans which exist to-day in New York and Paris as well as London. This old gentleman, having amassed a considerable fortune, noted the poor conditions in which the people of London lived and made a donation of £500,000, which was a considerable sum in those days, to make provision for housing London's respectable poor. If I may read extracts from the Charter of Incorporation of the Trust, I think the Committee will agree that there is some reason for treating these schemes favourably under this Bill. I quote the following words as to the general objects of the fund, as defined by the Charter of Incorporation. They were:
to ameliorate the condition and augment the comforts of the labouring poor who either by birth or established residence form a recognised portion of the population of London.
and in furtherance of such objects and purposes, inter alia, to acquire and hold sites and to erect model dwellings thereon. He further goes on:
It is my ardent hope and trust that within 100 years the annual receipts from rents for buildings of this improved class may present such a return that there may not be a poor working man of good character in London who could not obtain comfortable and healthful lodgings for himself and his family at a cost within his means.
I regret that, owing to the increased cost of building, the increased size of London, and the very small charge made for the rent of these buildings, what he hoped for in 100 years has not come to pass, but prompted by Peabody's example, certain other bodies—the Guinness Trust, the Lewis Trust, and the Sutton Trust—were formed to give similar donations and some of an even greater amount, and to-day those four trusts house 64,000 people in London alone. Had the fund been increased by 5 per cent. each year, in the case of the Peabody Trust, it would have been £15,000,000 in 1942, and at the end of the period of 100 years it would have been £65,000,000. I regret that that is not the total of this fund to-day.
Under this new Bill, it is difficult to state what the cost to these four trusts will be, but we estimate that with the increased value of land, it may be £20,000 or more a year. This extra cost must fall on the poor. The trustees, the hon. Members supporting this Amendment and other gentlemen associated with me, will be obliged either to raise the rents by a figure of 6d, or 8d. each per week, or else we shall inflict a hardship on the poor by not having a yearly fund with which to make their lives more comfortable by new and improved houses. That is the choice. No dividend has ever been paid or may be paid on these funds, and no directors have received any emoluments. The managers have exercised a wise discretion and intelligence in studying building schemes all over the world. I maintain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be well advised—and I believe that most Members of the Committee on all sides will agree—that, if possible, no fresh charges should be put on these schemes or similar enterprises. I have only referred to these four trusts, because I am well acquainted with them, but there are many similar funds established throughout England and Scotland. I think we should wish to encourage private individuals to continue to emulate the example of these four men who in
their later days may have felt that they had helped to add to the comfort of less fortunate people than themselves.

4.0. p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): The cases which have been put forward by the hon. Member are, I think, all, as a matter of fact, exempted under the new Clause 19 as charities. Certainly the Sutton and Pea-body Trusts are. I am not quite certain of the position of the Lewis and Guinness Trusts, but I think that they are in exactly the same position. I think that they have to devote the whole of their funds to fresh construction, and, in those circumstances, they would all be exempt as charities. But if it is convenient to the Committee, and if I may be allowed, I will deal a little more widely with the question of housing associations which this Amendment raises, and as to which there are a number of Amendments which follow on the Order Paper. The position as regards the housing associations varies a great deal, naturally, with the way in which they are constituted and the powers which they have of carrying out work of different kinds. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin)—in page 19, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
(i) is owned by a housing trust or by a public utility society within the meaning of Section one hundred and thirty-five of the Housing Act, 1926, or by an authorised association within the meaning of Section sixteen, Sub-section (5), of the Town Planning Act, 1925, or by a body of persons authorised by special Act of Parliament to develop a garden city or garden suburb "—
which goes a good deal further, defining the different housing associations with reference to the various Acts under which they may be authorised or constitued. That Amendment really in its form is probably wider than the hon. Member who put it down quite appreciates, because it would cover, in fact, every co-operative society which happened to build houses. But we are very anxious to meet the position as regards the real housing association which exists for the purpose of housing the working classes or building houses for the working classes, and which is essentially in its nature, or so limited in its dividends, that it is obviously a non-commercial association. The words of the present
Amendment, curiously enough, I object to because they are not wide enough; they are limited strictly to real charitable institutions, and the phrase "company which does not trade for profit" might be held to exclude a company with a limited shareholding, and limited dividend on that shareholding, and where they raise money or give shares, perhaps, of a nominal value which people are good enough to subscribe. We are anxious not to exclude from the exemption associations of that type, as well as the purely charitable associations which deal with this problem through an original endowment, or an accumulation of funds obtained by an accumulation of the rents which have been received.
We propose, therefore, to introduce a Clause on the Report stage, if the Committee feel that that is the right thing to do, in order to give an exemption to associations which are limited, or substantially limited, to the building of houses for the working classes, and which also are limited in their dividends, or limited in the amount which they can pay by way of interest on money borrowed by them. I think, probably, the Committee will feel that if those classes of associations are exempted, then we really deal with the problem which, I think, many Members of the Committee have in mind in putting down various types of Amendment on this subject.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out from the word "classes" to the end.
There is a class of company which is providing dwellings for the working people of this country rather different from the classes referred to in the Amendment, and that is the reason I have put on the Paper an Amendment to the Amendment something on the lines indicated by the Solicitor-General. I, myself, am chairman of an industrial dwellings company known as the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, which houses some 20,000 workers. It was founded by Sir Sydney Waterlow, a year after Peabody started his housing trust in 1863, that is 68 years ago. It was an aphorism of Sir Sydney Waterlow, who subsequently presented Waterlow Park to London, that the soundest institutions were those which paid their way, and that the truest philanthropy
was philanthropy and 5 percent. He always endeavoured to see that his company, which has dwellings in all parts of London, should pay a reasonable dividend of 5 per cent., and that working people, and as many people as possible, should be interested in the company. Consequently, there are a very large number of small shareholders. This company started building flats in 1863, and has gone on doing so ever since. The first Duke of Westminster, when these flats were being built 30 or 40 years ago, thought it was undesirable, and not in the national interest, that all the rich people in London should be congregated in Mayfair and Grosvenor Square, and seven sites in Mayfair were set apart on which to erect industrial dwellings. We have erected them there, and altogether, scattered about in May-fair, there are some seven industrial blocks of dwellings housing a large number of workers.
If this tax is to become law, it will, naturally, have a most serious effect upon our dwellings in the West End of London. It will not have much effect on our dwellings in the East End and the poorer parts of London, but it will upon the dwellings to which I have referred in the West End, near Grosvenor Square, Sloane Square, and Selfridges especially. If you take away the industrial dwellings and leave a vacant site in the neighbourhood of Dorchester House or Selfridges, the value of the site is enormous. What is to be done? This will not be a question of taking land from the dukes and giving it to the people, but it will be a question of taking the industrial dwellings from the workers and giving them back to the dukes for luxury flats, because we have these valuable sites. We have had no valuation made, but hon. Members know the enormous price given the other day for the site of Dorchester House. The value of the site on which these dwellings stand in Mayfair may reach £500,000. That is a mere guess, but it is certainly a very large sum of money. If we are to pay even a penny in the £ on a valuation of that kind, one of two things must occur. Either we must pull the flats down, and put up luxury flats, if we can do so, or else we must increase our rents, and let the flats to quite a different class of person than the class
at present occupying them at 10 shillings, 12 shillings or 14 shillings a week.
Therefore, in order to raise the matter, I move the Amendment to the Amendment. I cannot say whether the words will require some further amendment, but companies such as ours, the Artisan Dwellings Company, and others, should have special consideration with regard to the sites of dwellings let to working people, and that those should be on a different basis. Supposing we did pull them down and erected business or other premises, of course any concession made would be done away with, but I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, as long as the sites of industrial dwelling companies, whose main object is to provide residences for the workers of this country, are used for that purpose, they should have special concessions given to them with regard to this land Tax, and I have indicated in the case of the company with which I am familiar what would be the disastrous effect of this tax on that company.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I want to speak on the main Amendment, and perhaps I can say here what I was about to say, which was that I heard with great satisfaction the learned Solicitor-General say that the Government proposed to introduce on Report a Clause which will cover public utility societies for building purposes. I myself have an Amendment on the Paper—in page 19, line 22, at the end to insert the words:
e) is owned by any such society, body of trustees, or company as is mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section three of the Housing, &c, Act, 1923.
dealing with that very point, and I do think the Government have done well in recognising the work of those societies. As the Bill stands, if an area is developed for housing purposes by a municipality which owns the land, it is exempt. It seems to me that these public utility societies, which have been formed for the purpose of housing in many cases where the municipalities or local authorities have failed to do their duty are deserving of as much consideration. They take the initial risks of the scheme; they work the scheme: their profits are limited to 5 per cent. as a rule; the rents are fixed at the lowest possible level so as to cover the working of the scheme; and the whole of any profits there may be are devoted to
developing the housing in that area. It is true that at the end of the period the houses will become the property of the public utility society, but, if need be, I think that that could be met by it being suggested that they should pass to the local authorities.
There has never been any idea in these societies of making money out of it, and, therefore, it seems to me that any burden placed upon them would really be an error in public policy. I say that the rents are fixed at the lowest possible amount, and any further charge would be unfortunate. I only want to be sure how far the proposal of the Government goes. Take the case of Letchworth, which is one of the oldest societies. The whole of the profits is put into the undertaking to improve the housing, and, therefore, as I say, I think they ought to be protected from any tax. I am glad that the Government have gone as far as they have, and I hope they will see that these societies are all protected.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the Solicitor-General give us an assurance that when he is framing the new Clause which he has proposed, he will at least, without committing himself definitely, take into consideration the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), then perhaps we shall be able to get on with the next Amendment?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I rather gathered, from what the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) said, that what I had said would probably cover the cases he had in mind. The two essential factors from our point of view are that the association or body of persons, whatever it may be, should exist solely for building working-class houses or practically for that purpose, and that the profits should be limited to a figure of 5 percent.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer the point put by my right hon. Friend in regard to garden cities?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Letchworth. Frankly, I do not know exactly the position, but, if they comply with the conditions I have stated, they will be as entitled as anyone to exemption, but I
rather doubt whether Letchworth exists solely or mainly to supply houses for the working classes.

Mr. LEIF JONES: My contention is that they do comply with the conditions mentioned by the Solicitor-General.

Sir W. DAVISON: I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for what he has said. We have also, however, dwellings for what might be called black-coated workers. The overwhelming majority of our dwellings are for working people at low rents of 8s to 10s. a week, but there are certain other dwellings let at a higher rent and it is only for the former class of dwellings that I ask for exempt-ion from the tax. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) is land owned by any savings bank certified under the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863, or vested in the custodian trustees of any such savings bank.
These savings banks are philanthropic institutions and do not trade for profit, and the very small margin that they get to cover their expenses might be easily swallowed up by any further taxation. They exist for the general interest and welfare of the public, and it is only right and proper that they should be exempt. I am not clear whether they are already excluded under the heading of charitable institutions, but I move this Amendment in order to make the position clear.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that this is a case where we cannot agree to exemption. This matter has been carefully considered from time to time as regards exemptions from the Income Tax provisions, and savings banks have been already charged to Income Tax in respect of both their premises and their investments. Therefore, they do not come under charitable exemptions. The position nowadays with regard to savings banks is different from what it was. There is now no limitation of the total amount that can be deposited by any one depositor as there used to be, so that really they are in much the
same position as other banks, although they cater for a particular class of people. That does not seem to be any real reason why they should be exempt, and they are not really analogous to charities.

Amendment negatived.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 8, to leave out the words "and used."

Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT Ward: Is this Amendment consequential on the next—in line 9, after the word "purposes," to insert the words:
or is owned by trustees in trust for naval, military or air force purposes"?
If so, would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if they were taken together?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If they are consequential, the Debate can take place on both together.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They are not actually consequential, but if it be for the convenience of the Committee for me to deal with the whole of the Amendments to Clause 19, I am prepared to do it. The word "used" is proposed to be left out because it is felt to be redundant, and creates a little difficulty in the wording of Clause 20, which would have to be amended accordingly. To indicate that it is land owned by a Government Department is sufficient without putting in the word "used" as well.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I want to say, in regard to the Amendments to this Clause which have been put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we find ourselves in the extraordinary position that, under the Guillotine, it is absolutely impossible to obtain adequate time for our own Amendments. We are obliged to sacrifice discussion on one Amendment after another which we would have wished to discuss, and we have to make our choice between Amendments and take only those upon which it seems to be possible to get any discussion. The only course open to us therefore is to avoid any discussion on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: There is an Amendment in my name, in line 9, after the word "purposes," to insert the words "or for the purposes of the Territorial
Army." I am not quite sure whether the Chancellor's Amendment is intended to cover the object which I had in putting my Amendment down. I am informed that the case I have in mind has been brought to the notice of the Chancellor by the War Office. It is a commonplace to say that the greater includes the less, but in the proceedings of this House that is not always the case. For example, it is impossible to debate anything dealing with the Territorial Army under Vote A of the Army Estimates. I should like to have a definite assurance that the Amendments of the Solicitor-General definitely include land held for the purposes of the Territorial Army. In the City of London, half-a-mile from the Bank of England, there is a piece of land occupying five or six acres, which has been used for military purposes for 400 years and is now occupied by a Territorial unit. If valued, that land would be worth some millions of pounds sterling. It is now in the occupation of this unit on a lease from the Corporation of the City of London at a peppercorn rent, provided it is used for military purposes only. I should like to have an assurance that this piece of ground is covered by the Amendment.

Mr. KELLY: Does the Amendment cover the canteens which we know as the Naval, Military and Air Force Canteens? If it does, it is a most unjust decision. They are already making huge profits and paying large salaries to those at the head, and it would be very unfair to exempt them.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward), the words in the second of my Amendments are proposed for the purpose of exempting, among others, the Honourable Artillery Company's premises to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. As regards canteens, I think that the whole of the premises they occupy are in the possession of the Government, and are therefore exempt.

Mr. KELLY: I understand that they were at one time in the possession of the Government, but that at a particular stage—I do not know why; it may have been some bargain that was made with
other people—they were passed out to another concern, and I cannot look upon them as a Government institution. They are institutions with which we are not able to deal when abuses occur.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 9, after the word "purposes," insert the words:
or is owned by trustees in trust for naval, military, or air force purposes."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 12, to leave out the word "authority," and to insert instead thereof the word "board."

This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: As the Solicitor-General is moving a drafting Amendment, may I suggest that he would be good enough to consider two other purely drafting Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) and myself? The first is in page 19, line 11, after the first word "by," to insert the words "or controlled by or held in trust for." The other is in line 11, to leave out the second word "by."

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
or by a body of persons authorised by any special Act or order having the force of an Act, to construct, erect, or maintain as its principal business, any embankment or sea or river wall.
This Amendment is moved because there are some statutory bodies occupied with the maintenance of sea walls, like the Wallasey Embankment Commissioners, who are at present not included in the Bill with other similar bodies who have been brought within its provisions. It had not been realised that there were such bodies who were outside the Drainage Act, 1930.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Does this Amendment cover the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) and myself and some other hon. Members?—[In page 19, line 13, after "1930" insert "or under any other Statute or award."]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to move, in page 19, line 17, to leave out from the word "persons" to the word "on" in line 19, and to insert instead thereof the words "which carries."
If this Amendment were accepted paragraph (d) would then read:
is owned by a body of persons which carries on as its principal business any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock.
This Amendment is followed by a number of others in the names of hon. Friends of mine covering similar points, and therefore I do not propose to deal in detail with this Amendment, but be as brief as I can in order to allow other hon. Members to put their points. First, I would say a word on the main principle underlying the whole Sub-section. I understand it is the case under the Bill that if a body of persons carry on work of the kind mentioned in this paragraph under the authority of some public statute or order they will be exempt from Land Tax, but a private body of persons doing precisely the same kind of work at precisely the same charges and rendering the same service to the public are to be taxed. Before I say a word or two on the principle of that, if it can be called a principle, I would remark in passing that it is much the same as if the Solicitor-General were to receive his salary free of Income Tax while occupying that position but pay Income Tax on his earnings when he returns to the Bar.
Coming to the actual undertakings affected, I would draw attention to the position of the wharfingers of the Port of London. They will be taxed under the Bill, whereas the Port of London Authority, which carries on the same work as the wharfingers, escapes from the taxation. The wharfingers are in direct competition with the Port of London authority. Is that wrong, in the Government's view? Is it anti-social of the wharfingers to compete, and are they to be penalised, or do the Government suggest that the sites of the wharves and warehouses are not being put to the best use and should be turned into big offices? Is it suggested that the wharfingers do not carry out a similar public duty and render a similar
public service? They provide accommodation for steamers and facilities for unloading barges and the like. The Port of London Authority already has advantages over the wharfingers for it pays its rates on its income value and the wharfingers pay on their annual value. The Port of London Authority receives revenue from dock dues, whereas the wharfingers receive none, and yet the annual value of the wharfingers property is in the neighbourhood of £500,000 per annum. I ask the Solicitor-General how he can justify the discrimination between these two bodies. In actual fact the wharfingers employ more men that the Port of London Authority.
I expect the principle on which the Government has proceeded is the principle of abstract Socialism, which is showing its head for the first time in this Bill. The principle which the Subsection enunciates is this, that it is wrong and anti-social for private persons to do something which it is right and social for a public authority to do. I object most strongly to that principle. What have the Liberal party to say about it?? The advance guard are here and the main body cannot be far behind. The commander-in-chief is not absent, he is within hail. On a vital Clause of this kind, where the issue of individualism versus Socialism is put clearly before us, we ought to know the Liberal party's view, and what they are instructed to say by their various coloured books. I must remind them of the clarion call of their leader when speaking at Tenby:
A party can be driven up to a point when its very self-respect will force it to hit out.
I thought at the time that I had never heard a better paraphrase of the old proverb, "A worm will turn." It is not too late. The Liberal party can still retrieve their position and recover some portion of their shattered reputation. If they support this Amendment and carry it, it may be that it will cause for a time their political downfall, but it will be honourable for them to die in the last ditch, if the last ditch is the Thames at the Port of London.

Viscount WOLMER: I wish to put the case, which I have been asked to bring forward by the Gas Companies' Protection Association, oil gas companies who
will be adversely affected if this Amendment is not carried. There are 350 of them in England and 150 in Scotland. They are gas companies who are performing precisely the same public service as gas companies working under statutory powers, but who themselves have not received statutory authority. In many cases, they were started as very small concerns and simply could not afford the expense of coming to Westminster to get an Act of Parliament, but they have carried on their work for many years and have always been regarded as being on exactly the same level as other gas companies. When the Local Government Act, 1929, was passed words were inserted which put these gas companies in precisely the same position as statutory gas companies. If a differentiation is now made against the non-statutory gas companies, surely a very great injustice will be done.
These companies are in a sense in competition with statutory companies. If further charges are put upon them they must pass them on to their customers by raising the price of gas, and it is clearly inequitable that the price of gas to one set of customers should be raised by this Act while the price of gas to another set of customers is not interfered with. Two firms who are respectively drawing gas supplies from two companies of these different types may themselves be in competition, and we shall be adding to the costs of the one firm and not to the costs of the other. These gas companies are in direct competition with electricity companies, which are statutory bodies. While they may have to raise the price of their gas the electricity companies will not have to raise the price of electricity. I ask the Solicitor-General on what principle he can justify placing an extra burden on these companies, many of which are just as old as any of the other gas companies and are carrying out precisely the same work? I repeat that my appeal is not made on behalf of an isolated case or two, for there are 500 of these gas companies in the United Kingdom.

Sir D. HERBERT: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) made special reference to the case of the wharfingers of the Port of London. There is a similar Amendment on the
Order Paper in the name of myself and various other hon. Members, including the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. Grenfell), dealing with the City of London—in page 19, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
(e) is owned by or leased to or occupied by a public wharfinger as defined by Sub-section (9) of Section two hundred and twenty-four of the London Building Act, 1930.
I ask the Government to be good enough to pay special attention to the case of the wharfingers in the City of London, because it has been found necessary in the past to give them special treatment, and there is a good case for it here. To put the matter very shortly, the trade of the Port of London cannot be carried on by the Port of London Authority alone. These wharfingers are an absolute necessary to the business of the port. They make only the same charges as the Port of London Authority and if they are to have burdens thrown upon them which are not put upon the Port of London Authority the result, as they are retricted to the particular charges levied by the Port of London Authority, will be that they will be thrown out of business, to the very great detriment of the Port of London and the trade of the country as a whole. Under the Derating Act it was necessary to treat them specially, and I hope the Solicitor-General will make quite sure that the wharfingers are protected under this Bill, and that even if he cannot agree to the present Amendment he will at least agree to the later one which is confined to the wharfingers of the City of London.

Major HARVEY: May I inquire about the position of private aerodromes? I know of one, of great benefit to the people in the west of England, which is run by private enterprise, and I see no reason why that individual company should be taxed whereas, if the aerodrome were run by a municipal authority, it would escape this taxation.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I wish to support this Amendment, because in this Clause we are differentiating between people who are working under private enterprise and the work of municipal authorities, railway companies and so on. I imagine that the hotels of the railway companies are exempted, and it is most
unfair that a hotel like the Adelphi in Liverpool, which is a big luxury hotel, or the hotel at Gleneagles, should be exempted because they are owned by railway companies while other struggling hotels which are being run by ordinary private enterprise have to pay the tax. It is not fair, either, that local authorities' aerodromes should escape this taxation while aerodromes supported by private enterprise are penalised. This point ought to be taken up by someone on the Liberal benches. At the General Election the Liberals professed to be an independent party, anti-Socialist, and out for private enterprise. Perhaps some of the Liberals who are now in the House will let us know whether they are still independent and believe in private enterprise, or whether they have all gone over to Socialism.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We are dealing with the land owned by local authorities. The reason for exempting it is because it is land already owned by the community, and the payment of a Lax by a municipal authority to the central authority would be merely transferring the money from one public body to another, and it is not thought worth while doing that in the circumstances. The position is different with regard to statutory companies. Statutory companies are exempted from the operation of the Bill because they are controlled by Parliament, and in practically every case they are controlled in regard to the charges that they can impose and also in regard to the use that they can make of their land.
Take the case of the railway companies. They cannot sell the land which they have acquired for the purposes of their undertaking. The land they have bought must be permanently devoted to the purposes of their undertaking. The hotels are in a rather different position. I will first deal generally with the case, and then come to the position of the hotels. Generally, as regards the whole property of the railway companies, they cannot alienate it so long as it has been acquired to be used for the purposes of their undertaking; that is to say, other than surplus land. There are special Regulations in the Lands Clauses Act as to how the land may be dealt with. Under the Railways Act of 1921 a limitation is put
upon the company's earnings, and the position is entirely different from that of a private undertaking.
As regards the special case of the Gleneagles Hotel, and other similar hotels, of which I should think there are probably half-a-dozen in the whole country, they admittedly raise a different case. In that case, it is merely an investment, and they can sell it if they wish to do so. It is quite true to say that those particular hotels are in competition with other hotels in the country. The difficulty, however, of trying to extract the hotel business from the railway companies' property is insuperable, because, as the railway companies' departments are arranged, all the restaurant cars and all the refreshment rooms are dealt with as part of the hotel business of the railway company, and it is obvious that nobody can go up and down the country and separate at every station the site value of the refreshment room in order to charge that department of the hotel with the tax, and not charge the rest of the railway station. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is an absurd tax!"] If the hon. Member who has interrupted me looks through the Income Tax law, he will find instances in which it might be called an absurd tax, but he would not argue that we should drop the tax altogether on that account.
It is necessary when starting with the charge of a new tax like this that we should work out our way, and it is much better to exempt wholly the statutory companies than by a more complicated series of provisions atempt to bring in a value which on the whole six or seven hotels might not amount to more than £100 or £200. The site value of Gleneagles Hotel would be extraordinarily small, because it is not in a busy centre. The Adelphi Hotel at Liverpool is one of the few cases where the hotel is not built in association with the railway station. The bulk of railway hotels are built in association with the stations, and in that case it is impossible to divide them. Where an hotel is built over a railway line it is difficult to apportion the values between the railway and the hotel, and the result cannot possibly have much effect upon the tax. In regard to the cases which come under the Railways Act it does not matter, from a competition point of view, because,
although the hotel business is an ancillary business under the Railways Act of 1921, the profits or losses are brought into the general account of the railway companies, and it makes very little difference whether one or other of those ancillary businesses shows a loss or not.

Sir W. BRASS: That is not very fair to the other hotels.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If it does not matter to the railway company whether it makes a loss or not on the hotel business because they can meet the loss by the profit on the other part of the railway business, the question of the tax falling upon the hotels will not affect the position very much, because the railway companies can make up the business from their freight receipts. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is absurd."] If hon. Members had heard the arguments put before the Railway Tribunal as I have heard them, they would know that is exactly the argument which is always put forward by their competitors.
The Port of London Authority is in our view clearly a case where a company has submitted to statutory regulation, and where it is being substantially run for the public benefit; in fact, it is one of the forms of nationalisation. In these circumstances there is no reason why an extra charge should be put upon a company, the whole of whose profits have to go to the reduction of the dues which are charged. The profits of the Port of London Authority can only be applied to reducing the charge to the consumer. Therefore, as the community gets the whole of the profit made by the Port of London Authority, there is no reason why a land tax should be charged in respect of their property. May I also point out that the Port of London Authority are regulated by a maximum in regard to the charges which they can make. Those are the reasons why we have given this exemption, and they are the reasons why we are not able to extend an exemption to ordinary commercial companies which are carrying on their business in the ordinary way the profits of which go to the individuals who own the company or have an interest in it, and whose charges are not regulated by Statute.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to reconsider this question before the Report stage because he has not met the case
which has been put forward in favour of this Amendment. The claim is not put forward in the interests of the man who owns the property, but entirely in the interests of those who use the property. The Solicitor-General is opposing this Amendment on the ground that the property belongs to a private company and not to a public authority, but that is not the point. The real issue is how this tax is going to affect the people who use these private undertakings. The inevitable effect of the Clause is to put a burden on the people who use the wharves. The Solicitor-General drew a distinction between the wharfingers and the Port of London Authority, and in the latter case he said that the profit was devoted to the benefit of the public. I remember that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was negotiating the arrangement for the establishment of the Port of London Authority he found it was desirable to exclude the wharves from his amalgamation of the large dock companies, and that was done in the interests of the people who use the wharves, and because the multifarious trades were better served in that way than by leaving them under the control of the Port of London Authority. At least 40 percent, of the trade coming into the Port of London comes to the wharves and 50 per cent. of the labour engaged in the Port of London is engaged on the wharves, and it is in the interests of those using the wharves that they should be exempt from this tax
The wharfingers do not make excessive charges, and they have to arrange their charges subject to the charges fixed by the Port of London. The only effect of this tax is that it puts them at a disadvantage, and you are really placing the charge on the people who are using the independent wharves. For these reasons, I ask the Solicitor-General not to be so deplorably consistent and to do something for what is, after all, a thing which a great Free Trade Government should consider, and that is the interests of the shipping trade of this country. If the hon. and learned Gentleman adopts my suggestion, he will be rendering a great service to the shipping trade of the Port of London and other ports by giving this
exemption. It the solicitor-General does not accept this Amendment, he will be showing himself singularly callous to great public undertakings by rejecting such a reasonable proposal.

5.0 p.m.

Major COLVILLE: The Solicitor-General has laid down the axiom, apparently, that, where profits are limited by the State, exemption from land tax can be secured. In that case he is going to be in serious difficulty with the Kent Restrictions Act, if we understood him correctly as to the reason for certain undertakings being exempted from the tax. With regard to the question of wharves, it would be unreasonable to exempt railway lines and yet tax railway terminal stations, but the wharves are the terminals of the seaway just as much as the terminal stations are of the railway. It is quite unreasonable to take the suggested action and leave these wharves subject to the tax, and I suggest that the particular case of the wharves requires the Solicitor-General's very earnest consideration.

Sir D. HERBERT: As the Solicitor-General did not refer specially to wharves in his reply, I should like to ask him whether, in considering a Bill of this kind, he cannot go outside these mere rules in regard to where profits go, and have a little regard to one of the most important things for this country, namely, the prosperity of the Port of London and of the many workers engaged therein, who will be thrown out of employment if these wharves have to shut up.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I desire to raise another point in connection with this matter. Unfortunately, it is not possible for all the Amendments which have been put down to Clause 19 to be considered, but I am wondering whether the Solicitor-General or other members of the Government have looked into the case of the private omnibus owners. Compare the position of private omnibus owners, with regard to the land on which their garages are built, with the position of omnibus undertakings belonging to local authorities or even to railway companies. If an omnibus undertaking is owned by a local authority or a railway company, the land on which its garages are built is exempt, under Clause 19, from the land tax. That places a very big industry, namely, that of the private omnibus concerns, in a very unfortunate
position; they ought to have the same consideration as the railway companies and the omnibus undertakings that are owned by local authorities. The private omnibus owner has to bear the whole of his rates and taxes, and in addition, under this Bill, a tax on the land on which his garages are constructed. I do not ask that the offices should be exempted, but only the land on which the actual garages and workshops are constructed, as in the case of the railway companies.
If the Government desire to be fair, the private omnibus owner should be placed on exactly the same footing as the local authority. Otherwise, as has already been pointed out, a distinction is drawn between the costs in the two cases. Someone has to bear the costs, and, if the land on which these garages and so on are constructed is to be subject to this tax, the users of the omnibuses will have to pay it. I have an Amendment on the Paper, but, unfortunately, I have no opportunity of moving it. I would, however, ask the Solicitor-General whether, between now and the Report stage, he will look into the matter. I will take care then to put down an Amendment dealing with this subject, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing it, and that in the meantime the Government will look carefully into the matter and see that fair rations are dealt out to these private owners. The manner in which I can discuss the matter now is

rather limited, but I hope that on the Report stage I and my hon. Friends who are interested in the Amendment will have a reasonable opportunity of discussing it, and that the Government will not only give it their sympathy, but will recognise that it is only fair and honest to these private omnibuses that they should be placed in the same position as the coaches owned by municipal undertakings.

Captain Sir BURTON CHADWICK: I shall not attempt to add to all the forcible arguments which have been put forward against this tax from this side of the Committee, but, with regard to the question of docks and wharves, I want to emphasise the point which was made by my right hon. Friend. Not only is this a harsh tax with respect to the shipping which makes use of these wharves, but it is a discriminating tax as between one kind of sea transport and another, and it inflicts very great hardship on one particular kind of shipping trade, namely, the short sea coastal trade. That trade is heavily enough handicapped under existing conditions, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will take this matter into consideration between now and the Report stage.

Question put, "That the words pro-posed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 222.

Division No. 349.]
AYES.
[5.7 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Freeman, Peter


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Buchanan, G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Burgees, F. G.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Cape, Thomas
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)


Alpass, J. H.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Amman, Charles George
Chater, Daniel
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Angell, Sir Norman
Church, Major A. G.
Gibbins, Joseph


Arnott, John
Clarke, J. S.
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cluse, W. S.
Gill, T. H.


Ayles, Walter
Cynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Glassey, A. E.


Barnes, Alfred John
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gossling, A. G.


Barr, James
Cove, William G.
Gould, F.


Batey, Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Daggar, George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin, Cent.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Dallas, George
Gray, Mliner


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Dalton, Hush
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Benson, G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Day, Harry
Groves, Thomas E.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Denman, Hon- R. D.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Duncan, Charles
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Ede, James Chuter
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, c.)


Bromfield, William
Edge, Sir William
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Bromley, J.
Edmunds, J. E.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Brooks, W.
Elmley, Viscount
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)


Brothers, M.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Walsh Univer.)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield
Foot, Isaac
Harris, Percy A.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Manning, E. L.
Shield, George William


Haycock, A. W.
Mansfield, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Hayday, Arthur
March, S.
Shillaker, J. F.


Hayes, John Henry
Marcus, M.
Shinwell, E.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Markham, S. F.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Marley, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Marshall, Fred
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mathers, George
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Matters, L. W.
Sinkinson, George


Herriotts, J.
Maxton, James
Sitch, Charles H.


Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R. Wentworth)
Messer, Fred
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mills, J. E.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hoffman, P. C.
Milner, Major J.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Hopkin, Daniel
Montague, Frederick
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morley, Ralph
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mort, D. L.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Muff, G.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Murnin, Hugh
Strauss, G. R.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Naylor, T. E.
Sullivan, J.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Sutton, J. E


Kelly, W. T.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oldfield, J. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Kinley, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Thurtle, Ernest


Kirkwood, D.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Tillett, Ben


Knight, Holford
Palin, John Henry.
Tinker, John Joseph


Lang, Gordon
Paling, Wilfrid
Toole, Joseph


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Palmer, E. T.
Tout, W. J.


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Townend, A. E.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Vaughan, David


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Lawrence, Susan
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Walker, J.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wallace, H. W.


Lawson, John James
Pole, Major D. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Oastle)
Potts, John S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Leach, W.
Price, M. p.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wellock, Wilfred


Lees, J.
Raynes, W. R.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Leonard, W.
Richards, R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
West, F. R.


Lindley, Fred W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Westwood, Joseph


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Riley, F. F, (Stockton-on-Tees)
White, H. G.


Logan, David Gilbert
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Longbottom, A. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Longden, F.
Romeril, H. G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lunn, William
Rowson, Guy
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


McElwee, A.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


McEntee, V. L.
Samuel, H. Waiter (Swansea, West)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


McKinlay, A.
Sandham, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacLaren, Andrew
Sawyer, G. F.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Scott, James
Wise, E. F.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Scurr, John
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sexton, Sir James
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


McShane, John James
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sherwood, G. H.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Castle Stewart, Earl of


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bird, Ernest Roy
Cautley, Sir Henry S


Albery, Irving James
Blindell, James
Cayzer, Sir c. (Chester, City)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. IM. S.
Boyce, Leslie
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Chapman, Sir S.


Aske, Sir Robert
Brass, Captain Sir William
Christie, J. A.


Altar, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Briscoe, Richard George
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Astor, Viscountess
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Buchan, John
Colfox, Major William Philip


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bowdley)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Colman, N. C. D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Colville, Major D. J.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Butler, R. A.
Cooper, A. Duff


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Beaumont, M. W.
Campbell, E. T.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Carver, Major W. H.
Cowan, D. M.




Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rothschild, J. de


Crichton-stuart, Lord C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Iveagh, Countess of
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salmon, Major L.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Daikeith, Earl of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. Georae (S. Moiton)
Savery, S. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davies, Ma]. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Latham, H. p. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Skelton, A. N.


Despencer-Hobertson, Major J. A. F.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Smithers, Waldron


Elliot, Major Waiter E.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Somerset, Thomas


England, Colonel A.
Lymington, Viscount
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-t.-M.)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Ferguson, Sir John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Flson, F. G. clavering
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Meiler, R. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Fremantle, lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Gaibraith, J. F. W.
Milne, wardlaw-, J. S.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thompson, Luke


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Train, J.


Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Muirhead, A. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter
O'Connor, T. J.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Warrender, Sir victor


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wells, Sydney R.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peic, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hammersley, S. S.
Purbrick, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pybus, Percy John
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsbotham, H.
Withers, Sir John James


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Haslam, Henry C.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Womersley, W. J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Remer, John R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)



Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 23, to leave out paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h), and to insert instead thereof the words:
(e) is owned by any persons entitled to claim, in respect of the unit or of any part thereof or in respect of the rents or profits of the unit or of any part thereof, exemption from Income Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, by virtue of Section thirty-seven or thirty-eight of that Act, or section thirty of the Finance Act, 1921, or allowance in respect of such Income Tax by virtue of No. VI of that Schedule;
(f) is owned by a registered friendly society.
The purpose of this Amendment is to exclude charities generally, and also registered friendly societies. The reason for the form of the Amendment is that it is desired, as far as possible, that
people who are already exempt under the Income Tax Acts should know their position under this Act, and, therefore, if one legislates by reference to exemptions already given under the Income Tax Acts, it will be comparatively easy for any body or association which has already made an Income Tax claim for exemption to know what the position will be under the present Bill. The general effect of the Clause, of course, is limited to cases where the land unit is not subject to a lease granted for a term exceeding 50 years, but I should like to make it clear that, by the operation of Clause 20, any interest of an exempted body, whether as lessor for more than 50 years or as lessee for a term of under 50 years under another lessor, is itself exempted, so that all
these bodies will be totally exempted whether they own the land or are lessors for over 50 years or are lessees of other lessors for less than 50 years.
I do not think that it would be profitable to go through the precise Sections of the Income Tax Acts that are referred to in order to explain the content of each one of them. It will probably be better if I give a general view of what is covered by those Sections. The scope of the meaning of charitable purposes, which is the expression used in those Sections, is very wide indeed, and, as was explained by my right hon. Friend on 15th June, it covers four main heads, the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion and other purposes beneficial to the community. It is, naturally, not possible for me to give the Committee anything like an exhaustive list of the bodies which have been held by various judicial decisions to come within the term "charity" for the purpose of the Income Tax Acts, but perhaps I may indicate very shortly the type of body which has been held to be covered, and to do so largely by illustrations from Amendments which have been put on the Paper by various hon. Members opposite. For instance, orphanages, institutions for the care or benefit of the destitute, blind, crippled, aged and sick and poor in general, bodies which hold their land in trust for the advancement of religion, such as churches, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Young Men's Christian association, all public schools, the term "public school" including all schools which receive grants from local authorities or the Board of Education, universities and colleges, trustees of scholarship funds, such bodies as the Royal Lifeboat Institution, societies for the protection of children, village institutes and clubs for poor boys and girls in the East End of London and other poor districts and the National and the London Playing Fields Associations. That, of course, is only a very limited list of the type of bodies, and to that may be added bodies of the type of the Yorkshire Agricultural Association which, it has been decided, is a charity and, of course, a number of other agricultural associations would similarly fall into that category.
There is perhaps one matter of detail to which I should make reference. It will be seen from the form of the Amendment that it covers cases where exemption under the Income Tax Act is in respect of a unit or any part thereof or in respect of the rents or profits of a unit or part thereof. There are some cases where under the Income Tax Acts only a part of a unit might be exempted, because as regards some other part of it it might be occupied by a person who paid rent whose income was over £150 a year. That might particularly apply in the case of places like colleges, where there might be some rent charged either to a fellow or to a student, and, consequently, that particular part of the college would not be exempt for the purposes of Income Tax. However, it has been thought that in such a case the whole unit ought to be exempt for administrative purposes. It obviously makes it much easier, and it is a matter of small importance. Therefore, the words "or part of a land unit" have been inserted to cover cases of that sort. The only other case that is dealt with is the case of registered friendly societies, and those are exempted from Income Tax on the basis of the Chancellor's statement on 15th June. I have a list here of the various Amendments that are covered either wholly or partly by the exemptions. It is a very long one, and I do not propose, unless hon. Members desire it, to read it out, but, if I can assist anyone by saying whether in my view a certain class comes within or without the charitable exemptions, I shall be very glad to do anything that I can.

Mr. BEAUMONT: We are very grateful to the Chancellor for the very wide response which he has given to some of our demands for exemption, but, of course, as is always the case, like Oliver, we ask for more. I want to call attention to one particularly difficult case which will occur when this Amendment is carried. It very rightly and properly exempts all schools which will come under the heading of charities. It will exempt all State schools, and, as far as I can make out, all schools not run for private profit. But you will then come up against the case of the small private school, which fulfils a very great purpose in the State and relieves it of a considerable amount of expenditure
inasmuch as the children who attend it pay for their education instead of Coming on the State for it, particularly in suburban areas, [Interruption.] I really cannot see why hon. Members find it necessary to cheer that statement ironically. It will be a very serious question indeed for small private schools in suburban areas, as all the school population will suddenly be thrown on the already overcrowded elementary schools. No small private school would be able to afford to own its land and, above all, to own its playing fields and the land for the amenities that we desire to see in the schools. You are going practically to wipe out small private schools in urban areas, because they will not be able to afford to carry on. I am not talking about the rich private school which charges a big fee and can afford, as far as anyone can afford, to pay the tax. I am thinking of the small private school which caters for the poor and charges very small fees. I ask the Solicitor-General if he can put the case up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see whether anything can be done on Report to ease the very severe burden which will be thrown on these schools and, by compelling them to move out into the country, will incur increased expenditure on the State.

Mr. SKELTON: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied that the Amendment gives relief to charities in Scotland whose investments are in the form of feu duties. The Bill is so complicated that I am not certain of the answer, but it is a matter that ought to be cleared up, because a great number of charitable institutions of all sorts in Scotland have their investments in feu duties, and some are confined to that class of investment.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): We have considered the matter from the point of view of charities in Scotland, particularly having regard to charities whose main investments are in feu duties. A charity in Scotland is the same thing as in England; that is to say, there is no difference for the purposes of Income Tax in what constitutes a charity in Scotland and in England. The matter works out in this way. The best way to get at it is to take a particular case. If yon take, for example, the Church of Scotland, one of three situations may
arise. The first situation is where the Church owns the land itself. That is to say, where you have what in England you call the freehold, where the Church owns both the superiority and the property and has, therefore, the full ownership. In that case it is quite clearly within the ambit of Clause 19 of the Bill, and no difficulty arises. There are two other cases to consider. There is the case where the Church holds land under a superior for which it pays a feu duty. That case is covered by Clause 20 (1) as applied to Scotland by Clause 30. I will indicate how Clause 20 (1) reads, if we read it in reference to the Application Clause, which is Clause 30. I will give a rough paraphrase of the Clause for purposes of illustration. Clause 20 (1) would read:
Where the Church (or any other charity) holds land under a superior and that land would have been exempt if the Church had held it free from any feudal relationship, the Church shall be entitled to relief from the tax, except in so far as it is recoverable from the superior.
The remaining case which arises is where the Church is the superior of the land and is therefore in receipt of the feu duties. That case is covered by Clause 20 (2) as applied by Clause 30. The Sub-section could be paraphrased to read thus:
Where the superior from whom any part of the tax is recovered by the vassal is the Church (or other charity) then as respects the tax so recovered he shall be entitled to relief as if he were the owner.
That is to say, as if he were under Clause 19. In the result he gets repayment of the tax. So that the hon. Member will see that we have dealt with the situation thus: First, where the Church owns the land itself, in that case it is within the ambit of Clause 19; secondly, where the Church is the vassal and has to pay feu duty, relief from tax is provided for under Clause 20 (1) as applied by Clause 30; and, thirdly, where the Church is the superior in receipt of feu duty, in which case we provide for a repayment of the tax under Clause 20 (2) as applied by Clause 30. Accordingly, I am able to give the hon. Member an assurance that the position of the Church and similar charities in the sense of the Act in Scotland is adequately protected.

Mr. OLDFIELD: The hon. Members who are associated with me in putting down certain Amendments to the Bill are
very satisfied with the sympathetic and courteous manner with which the Solicitor-General has always met us. I rise now to ask the Solicitor-General certain questions, in the first place, in regard to matters about which there seems to be a doubt as to whether they are covered by the new Clause of the Government, and, in the second place, to ask his opinion on certain matters which seem to be doubtful. Two Amendments with which my name is associated deal with the exemption of voluntary schools of a nonprofit making character, and with matters which, broadly speaking, come under the definition of charity for Income Tax purposes. In regard to the Clause, there is not, and never has been, any difference in principle between that for which we were asking and that which the Solicitor-General is prepared to give us. We never have asked, and indeed we should not think of asking, for the exemption of schools, denominational or otherwise, which are run for profit.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: On a point of Order. Do I understand that we are also discussing on the Amendment moved by the Government, as the hon. Gentleman appeared to be starting to do, the two following Amendments on the next page of the Order Paper standing in the name of the hon-Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) respectively? I think it is as well that the Committee should appreciate what is the position. We rather understood that these two Amendments would be called as separate Amendments.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: My difficulty is that I am not quite clear as to how far the Government's Amendment might cover the demands contained in the subsequent Amendments. I rather wanted to hear from the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) and the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Oldfield) whether it was their intention to move the Amendments standing in their names.

Sir D. HERBERT: On that point of Order. I am anxious to save time on this matter as much as possible, and I recognise in the present circumstances we are very much in the hands of the Government. In my opinion, it is immaterial whether we discuss the Amendments now
on the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or whether we deal with them later. I, certainly, have a point with regard to the Amendment in my name which I wish to put to the learned Solicitor-General, to the effect that he has not covered entirely the demand in my Amendment and, possibly, not everything he intended to cover in regard to religious bodies.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In that case, I suggest to the Committee that we should discuss the Government Amendment and, having got rid of it, I will then call such subsequent Amendments as may be necessary.

Mr. OLDFIELD: My difficulty in regard to your Ruling is that I cannot possibly tell until we have heard a speech by the Solicitor-General exactly where we stand regarding the other Amendments which are coming afterwards. I should have much preferred, if it had been possible, to have had a fairly wide discussion on the Amendment of the Government, because we should have known exactly where we were covered and where we were not covered. But it seems now that the specific exemptions have been withdrawn, and that the Government are proposing to exempt all those institutions and organisations.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must explain to the Committee that if the Government's Amendments is carried, the other two Amendments must be moved in somewhat different form. The wording of those Amendments will have to be altered in order to make it possible to insert them. My difficulty is to know what is the precise thing to do in order to meet the changed situation.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I make a suggestion? I think that substantial justice would be done if we could have a wide discussion upon this Amendment covering everything, and then, if my hon. Friend and the hon. Member opposite failed to get a satisfactory answer from the Solicitor-General, they could reserve their right to divide on their Amendment without further discussion. That, it seems to me, would do justice to everybody.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that that is by far the better method to adopt, and I am quite willing to agree to that course.

Mr. WISE: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Amendment to the Amendment standing in my name would be in order?—In line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
or by au allotment society registered under tie Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1926.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment to the Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. WISE: I understand that that would not prevent me from raising the matter in Debate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN indicated assent.

Mr. OLDFIELD: The point I wish to raise is whether all those schools which the Solicitor-General wishes to exempt are really exempted under the Government's Amendment. As far as the schools in England are concerned, the exemption is complete in regard to schools which are not run for profit. The case does not seem to be quite as satisfactory as far as Scotland is concerned. If one takes the denominational schools in Scotland set up under the Act of 1918, one finds that they are now operating in two ways. Some of those denominational schools have been sold to the local authorities, and in those cases the question does not arise. But in other cases they have been leased to the local authority under the Act of 1918. Although the whole of the money obtained from the local authority in the way of rent is devoted to purposes which are clearly charitable within the meaning of the Income Tax Act as being devoted to educational purposes and so forth, yet, strictly speaking, those schools are not exempt from tax under Schedule A for the reason that they are not subject to a trust. Unless I am mistaken they have to be subject formally to a trust before they can be regarded as a charity at all.
Those schools are exempt from Schedule A simply because of a convenient arrangement. An artificial trust has been created in order to meet the difficulty. I do not think that it is a very good way round, but that is what has actually been done. I do not believe that it will be practicable, without a good deal of undesirable dislocation, to provide a trust for those denominational schools of such a nature
as will bring them within exemption under Schedule A. The first question, therefore, which I should like the Solicitor-General to clear up is: Is it possible by altering the words slightly on the Report stage, to make it clear that those schools in Scotland will be brought in and will be exempted as are the schools in England?
The next thing which seems to be doubtful is the question of the churches. Under the Finance Bill, as originally drafted, churches were exempted specifically, and I suppose that the reason why that was done was that, unless a church trustified itself, strictly speaking it did not come within the definition of a charity as laid down in the Finance Act. I believe that churches are now exempt from Schedule A, not through any legal provision, but simply through custom and because, in point of fact, the tax is not collected by the Board of Inland Revenue. Under the new provisions in the Government's Amendment, although I do not doubt for one moment the intention of the Government, which, I think, is perfectly clear—I speak subject to correction, having had no legal training—we are not in such a strong position as we were under the specific exemption given to us in the Finance Bill as originally presented to us. I would like the Solicitor-General to deal with that point, and if the position requires strengthening perhaps he will indicate between now and the Report stage whether he can give some practical shape to it.
So far as the many charitable organisations are concerned the position is more satisfactory, because nearly all of them depend upon some kind of trust. Even where they do not depend upon some kind of trust it would, no doubt, not be very difficult to create a trust which would bring them within the meaning of the term "charity." The chief difficulty, as I see it, lies in those few charities which are directly administered by religious bodies and in respect of which it would be inconvenient to create an ad hoc trust, where the position seems to be an ambiguous one now, and in those anomalous positions which may arise in Scotland unless there is some slight alteration. In regard to the taxation of houses in which the clergy live and of church halls, it seems to me that church halls are not included by the new Amendment
and that presbyteries, vicarages and the like are only excluded from the tax in cases where the incumbent's income is under £150. So far as the religious body is concerned for which I am mainly speaking this afternoon, most of our priests have not an income of £150 a year. I do not think that distinction is a very satisfactory one and I am wondering whether the Solicitor-General cannot produce a more satisfactory distinction other than the purely arbitrary one of incomes of £150 a year.
I should like to see church halls exempt from the tax. For the main part they are used for purposes which are charitable within the meaning of the Act. Although it may be possible to include them by creating a special trust for each church hall, it should not be very difficult to devise words which would bring them in without putting upon them the obligation of turning themselves into trusts. I am putting these suggestions before the Solicitor-General more for clarification than for anything else. It may be that the two Amendments which stand in the names of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) and other hon. Members, and also in my name, are not wholly or entirely met by the Government Amendment, but I feel that the Solicitor-General has gone such a long way towards meeting us and has treated us with such generosity that my hon. Friends and myself do not propose to press our Amendment. We will leave it to the Solicitor-General to remedy those things which he thinks can be remedied before the Report stage comes along.

Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member referred to the difference between voluntary schools and profit-earning schools. What difference does he see between a voluntary school which is not exempted and a profit-earning school? Voluntary schools are to a certain extent profit-earning.

Mr. OLDFIELD: No.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Somebody gets some profit from them. It is the same in a private school; somebody gets a certain amount of profit there. The question is, what is the amount of profit?

Mr. OLDFIELD: The distinction is very simple. The ordinary non-provided school, which is provided in the vast majority of cases by religious bodies, does not make profit. It gives free education and is in receipt of certain grants from the local authority and the Government, which contribute towards the cost. In so far as what the Government provide and what the local authority provide does not quite cover the whole of the cost, the school is run at a moderate loss, which is found by the managers of schools. I draw a very sharp distinction, and it is a distinction easily drawn, whether we agree with it or not, between that class of school and the school which is run by a private corporation, say, run by some nuns, primarily for profit, and makes profit. That is in quite a different category.

Sir D. HERBERT: After the speech of the hon. Member opposite I can add very little, except to reinforce what he said, in so far as it is covered by the Amendment which stands in the names of myself and three hon. Friends of mine. The right hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is in his place, but perhaps it may not be necessary for him to express his views in regard to religious bodies on this question. I imagine that the Solicitor-General intends and desires to exempt everything which is covered by the Amendment in my name, namely, property owned by a religious body or on their behalf by trustees and
used wholly or mainly for the purpose of public religious worship or as a place of residence for the ministers, etc., of such body.
The hon. Member opposite was right in saying that the churches, which certainly do not pay Income Tax under Schedule A, are not exempt from that Income Tax in the way set out in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. I do not quite know the reason but I believe there is a theory they are not taxed because they are uninhabited places within the peculiar meaning of—I will not enter further into the matter. I do not know what the reason may be, but the Solicitor-General will agree with me that he does not want to tax churches. It is clear that they are not given exemption from Schedule A Income Tax under any of the enactments referred to here. There-
fore, I would suggest that the Solicitor-General should put into the Bill words sufficient to cover them.
There is serious doubt whether some of the residential property is exempt under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. Let me deal with the matter irrespective of denomination, because it does not apply to one particular church. Presbyteries, monastries, convents and properties of certain religious and residential kind are, I believe, intended to be exempt from this tax, and I think it would be the general view of the Committee that they should be, but it is extremely doubtful whether they are exempt under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. I therefore ask the Solicitor-General whether, if he cannot agree to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End, which includes mine, he will agree, and I would press him very strongly to agree, to the shorter Amendment standing in my name and the names of other hon. Members.

Major GLYN: Has the Solicitor-General given consideration to the question of those sisterhoods which belong to the Church of England where they collect fees from certain pupils, and those funds are, in turn, used to give free education to other children cither there or at other institutions. I am informed that as the Clause is now amended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer those religious bodies would be subject to the tax. In those circumstances considerable injustice would be done, because those bodies are, in the main, depending upon legacies which are left to them. They carry on work not only in this country' but in India and elsewhere, which is very largely dependent upon the statutory funds which they obtain and upon the funds which they are able to collect from the wealthier parents for educating some of the pupils, the balance of the money being solely used for educational and religious purposes. If the Solicitor-General will consider that matter, I shall be very much obliged. There is another point in regard to city companies in London who own considerable amounts of property in the shape of almshouses in London, to a large extent in the suburbs. Those almshouses are very old buildings and very frequently occupy sites of great importance. I would like to know
whether we can be assured that those almshouses, which are administered by city companies which work under charter, will be exempt from the tax.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I should like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Amendment and for the sympathetic way in which he has treated the universities, the public schools and other educational charities. The Solicitor-General very kindly said that he would answer questions as to certain exemptions. I take him at his word and I should be much obliged if he would let me know something about au Amendment which I have put down regarding two trusts, the Oxford Preservation Trust and the Cambridge Preservation Society, which was put down as an Amendment not to this part of the Bill but to paragraph (c). These two bodies are incorporated under the Companies Act as associations not for profit. The Board of Trade has consented to the omission of the word "Limited" on the names. No profits can be distributed, and the liability of members is limited by guarantee. There is no profit to members. The Articles of Association cannot be altered without the consent of the Board of Trade. The objects of both bodies are to protect the amenities of university towns and to preserve ancient buildings. A considerable amount of money has been subscribed and spent in these ways, and both universities are very anxious to know that they come within the exemptions of charities from the tax. They will have to come under the exemption of "bodies formed for other purposes beneficial to the community."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL indicated assent.

Sir J. WITHERS: I thank the Solicitor-General for the assurance that that is so.

6.0 p.m.

Commander SOUTHBY: I should like to add a few words to what was said by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) about private schools, and what was said by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Oldfield) in regard to church halls. I represent an area which will be particularly affected by this tax. Until quite recently it was a country area, but it is now very rapidly being built over, and the land has risen very much in value. In this area there are
many private schools and many church halls, and it seems to me that it would be very unfair that they should labour under the disability which they may labour under compared with the private schools or church halls in other districts where the value of the land is not so great. I ask the Solicitor-General to reconsider the question of these private schools. For the purpose of carrying on their business they must be situate as near London as possible. They must have playing fields and also sufficient premises to house their staff. They are going to be hit extremely hard by this tax. Many private schools exist in this area, some of which certainly are run for profit, but already they pay heavily as far as Income Tax Under Schedule A is concerned, and this further imposition will be a very difficult demand for them to meet. I hope something will be done to help them. As far as church halls are concerned, they occupy sites in this particular locality which are of great value, and, considering the good work which is done by them and the useful purposes they serve, they are deserving of the sympathetic consideration of the Government. I hope they will receive that sympathetic consideration.

Mr. DENMAN: May I add a word to reinforce the plea that has been made on behalf of those who occupy religious houses and places used as a residence for officers or employés of a religious body? After the generous treatment by the Government of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners one hardly likes to ask for anything more except when one considers that there has been an accidental omission, and I suggest that this point has been neglected by mistake and not by intention. The Solicitor-General realises that although the exemption frees the income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from a very heavy charge, the tax will be payable in respect of the properties of a benefice, that is to say, that incumbents will have to pay for glebe land and for the land on which their residences are situate. He will also realise that this may be something of a hardship because these residences often have a larger amount of ground than more modem residences; and their incomes are frequently small. Also they are quite incapable of
realising any of the financial advantages which will accrue from the appreciation of that land I am all the more emboldened to ask that this should be included because it was a point made in the Act of 1909–10 Section 37 of that Act said that Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on land used for certain charitable objects, and the land free from the burden included land used and occupied by—
any corporation sole and all universities.
I have no personal knowledge as to the nature of a "corporation sole" but the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong in thinking that it includes bishops, deans and incumbents. If he will come on to the terrace and have a cup of coffee with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bribery!"] I do not know how a House of Commons cup of coffee can be described as a bribe. [An HON. MEMBER: "What do you put in it?"]—he will see the site of the London County Council building which is free, St. Thomas's Hospital which is also free, but if he looks further to the right he will see Lambeth Palace Gardens which will be taxed. It seems rather hard that the Archbishop should have to pay for the site value of Lambeth Palace, and, if that hardship does not impress him then I ask him to reflect on the poor incumbents up and down the country in urban areas upon whom this burden will press.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I desire to add a word on behalf of private schools. There is a general idea that private schools are scattered units throughout the country doing no useful work for education. That indeed is not the case. I speak for two associations of private schools, including more than 1,000 schools, which are all doing good and useful work for the community.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are they to be subject to public control if they are going to have public money?

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I am asking for justice. These schools are doing very efficient work. They welcome inspection, and the reason they are not all inspected is because there is not a sufficient staff of inspectors at the Board of Education. They provide school buildings, teaching power and open, spaces, which are of great benefit to the community, and if
this additional burden is put upon them—it is additional because they already pay a considerable amount under Schedule A—they will find it difficult to carry on. I have here a list of private schools, and in two cases of private schools near the seaside they pay £92 a year and £272 a year in property tax. These schools, in fact, provide a very large income in rates and taxes for the community, far more than the State schools, and if you injure them at all you will inevitably decrease the income in rates and taxes of the local authority. What is going to be the effect on playing fields? Let me read a passage from a letter I have received from the chairman of a small private school, a girls' school, which is doing good work, but which last year had to reduce their fees owing to financial pressure. He says:
The imposition of the tax would mean an added burden which the finances of the school cannot bear, and doubtless it would have to close down, with the consequent result that 14 resident mistresses would join the ranks of the unemployed.
The school has about 15 acres of land partly used as playing fields and partly used for growing produce for the use of the school. It may be said that if exemption is granted to these schools you are encouraging inefficient schools. The exemption in the Bill up to the limit of £120 will cover most of the inefficient schools. They are generally small, and with only a small site value. Indeed, by the Bill you are letting off the inefficient schools and hitting the efficient. The double burden will compel proprietors of these schools to sell the whole or part of their playing fields, particularly when they are in the neighbourhood of large towns, where these open spaces are of great value.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know how the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) brings this within the Amendment. Under the Amendment we are dealing with exemptions for charitable institutions and not with ordinary private schools.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: We have heard from the Solicitor-General that charity covers not only a multitude of sins, but a multitude of definitions, and I contend that any educational establishment may be considered a charitable establishment.
These open spaces are of such importance to the community and are used for public purposes that if you cause the proprietors to sell you are doing a disservice to the whole community. I strongly urge that this matter should be reconsidered for the sake of the health of the community, for the sake of education, and on the ground of simple justice.

Mr. SANDHAM: I want to occupy the time of the Committee for a moment from the point of view of the modest yet very important institution which goes under the name of the Independent Labour party. It has branches all over the country. Its headquarters are Lanark House, Seven Sisters Road, Finsbury Park. It is an institution which exists exclusively for the development of education on high moral grounds. Our desire, of course, in the ultimate is to transfer to the community what the community has produced; in other words, to introduce a system of society that will abolish poverty and make life worth living. We realise that there can be no standard of high morality in business, and it is on those lines that I am speaking on the question of the education of the masses of the people. Our institution exists for that purpose. I contend that we have as great a claim for exemption for our premises as any religious institution in the country. Socialism, Mr. Dunnico, is my religion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that on an Amendment of this kind we cannot go into sectarian differences.

Mr. SANDHAM: I accept your Ruling. I do not wish to propound any distinctive differences or any feeling in regard to any other religious institutions. I am reminded of the definition of Socialism in the "Encyclopedia Brittanica "——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must obey my Ruling. He cannot discuss the merits of Socialism on this Amendment.

Mr. SANDHAM: I only want to know whether we are entitled to put in our plea for exemption on the ground that we are a modest but yet very important educational institution. In that regard, I do feel that the learned Solicitor-General would do well to take into consideration our particular viewpoint, because we are
week by week, in that self-sacrificing way, putting forth all our energy in the ultimate merely to abolish poverty, and there can be no greater moral work of an educational character. On those lines I make this appeal in order that we may be aided in our work, just as other bodies have put forth their plea to be aided in their work. If we take the prophecy of Isaiah we find it said:
And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

Mr. ATKINSON: Let me put the case in a nutshell. Playing-grounds are necessary for the health of the children and they are not a source of profit to those carrying on a school. They are indeed a charge and expense to a school. Let me ask one question which will test the whole thing. Will it be for the public good to force a reduction in the number or area of these playing-fields? No one can reply "Yes" to that question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to pursue that question further on this particular Amendment.

Mr. ATKINSON: I should have thought it came under the Amendment, which is directed to educational purposes. My remarks were intended to suggest that the Sub-section ought to be more widely drawn. At any rate I shall not now say more about it. I hold that these playing-fields are entitled to be included in the exemption on educational grounds, and on the ground that it would be a thousand pities if anything were done to reduce the number or area of these playing-fields.

Viscount WOLMER: I want to say one thing to hon. Members opposite who are taking rather the same line as some of us on this side. We are grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Amendment that he has proposed, and of course we do not intend to divide against it. But in our view it does not go nearly far enough. We think that the discussion has shown that the Amendment still leaves a large number of anomalies which it is quite impossible to
defend. The case brought forward by an Ecclesiastical Commissioner just now is a particularly hard one—that of the parson who is occupying a building, perhaps with a small garden, in the slum area of some city. Because he is situated on the field of his work he should not be taxed. An Amendment which stands in the name of several hon. Members on page 2281 of the Order Paper covers all these cases, and we hope very much that we shall have an opportunity of voting on that Amendment. If the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) and his supporters do not propose to move that Amendment, we should like to have an opportunity of moving it formally and voting in favour of it, because it deals with the matter a great deal better than the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. T. LEWIS: I rise to express the thanks of a very large organisation, namely, the friendly societies, for the very generous way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us. It is also, I agree, no more than justice. We do not always get justice from Governments, and when we do get it we want to recognise it. I fear that we would not have got treatment of so generous a kind from the previous Government. I remember their most ungenerous treatment of the approved societies, not mentioning the friendly societies, whose funds were depleted to a very large extent. I am still hopeful that the present Government will restore that which the previous Government took away from us. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his action, which was a matter of very grave importance to the friendly societies, with their eight million members and funds somewhere in the region of £80,000,000. They would have been seriously affected had this Amendment not been moved.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have been asked a number of questions, and I should be lacking in courtesy if I did not answer them. Let me first of all state that the basis of this Amendment is to adhere to what is already the practice under the Income Tax Acts. When I made that statement at the beginning hon. Members opposite, expressed their approval of that system of working the exclusion. Of course, if that system, is to work it cannot be added to by other and extra exclusions which do not come
within the Income Tax Acts. The system of dealing with charities as they are dealt with under the Income Tax Acts must be in itself completely adhered to or else it must be completely departed from. It is impossible partially to adopt it and partially to depart from it. Several cases mentioned by hon. Members are really ruled out on that line, apart altogether from their merits.
Reference has been made to private schools. I think that hon. Members have exaggerated the effect of the proposal on private schools. Let us take a case and see how it would work out. Let me assume that a private school occupies two acres of land, which is a very fair area for a playing field and school to occupy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members say "No," but I suggest that the type of school mentioned, that in a suburban area, very seldom has more than two acres of land. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Some hon. Members think that such schools have more land and some that they have less. As an arbitrator I should say that I am probably right. I will assume that the land is worth £1,200 an acre, which is a very high value and likely to be excessive. The tax for the year would be £10, and if there are 50 pupils that tax will work out at 4s. per head per annum, I do not think that hon. Members can say that that is going to put a school out of business.

Sir JOHN POWER: Is the tax going to remain for ever at a penny?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not dealing with "for ever!" I am dealing with the effect of this proposal on private schools. Let me answer the questions put to me by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Oldfield), as regards the voluntary schools, in contradistinction to profit-making schools. As far as the hon. Member gave any details I think that those schools would be covered. Of course it is impossible to give an answer in a particular case without knowing all the circumstances. If my hon. Friend Has any particular case in mind and would like to ask me privately, I will try to assist him and tell him whether it is covered. As regards the Scottish schools, he said that they were let for a term of years to a local authority. Again I am not certain what is the terms of years, and.
therefore, whether the local authority will be owners or whether the people who have let the school will be the owners under the Bill. I am not certain who are the people who own the school. Are they nominees or are they some religious body or is it a private individual?

Mr. OLDFIELD: It is the Church which owns the schools not already sold to the local authority. I think they are vested in the diocese. My point was that each school could not be administered by an ad hoc trust in Scotland without a good deal of dislocation.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think the question of an ad hoc trust will arise. Someone owns, nominees or diocese or bishop, and presumably the owner owns them on trust for some educational purpose, and that must be a charitable purpose.

Mr. OLDFIELD: There has been trouble over Schedule A, and it was only by creating a trust which was to manage the rent received by the local authority that the schools got out of paying Schedule A. I wonder whether the Solicitor-General could devise some method of attaining the undoubted object in view, of exempting these schools. If he would agree that there is no point of difference in principle between us, and would look into the question between now and Report, to see whether an arrangement cannot be made to work more smoothly, that would be all we would ask for.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We must really leave it at Income Tax exemption. I understand that they are exempted under Schedule A, and therefore they will be exempted under the tax. The question put by the hon. Member as to finding a way for dealing with the matter, is one for lawyers rather than for drafting in this Bill. As regards the churches, again I am not certain who is the owner of the churches. In this country as a rule the freehold of the church, I think, is technically in the Church of England incumbent.

Sir D. HERBERT indicated dissent.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I see that the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) shakes his head, but I think I am right in saying that, as a rule, technically speaking, the Church and
churchyard are in the legal ownership of the incumbent upon trust for the use of the parishioners.

Sir D. HERBERT: The churchyard only.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No. I think the hon. Member will find that it includes the church too—and, out of that, arises the right of the clergyman to keep the church closed on certain occasions, a right which has caused difficulty in certain cases. Clearly, he holds that property in trust for charitable purposes. It is not an express trust in the sense of a special document, but a legal trust which arises out of his position. That is why such property is not taxable under Schedule A or the Land Tax. A question was also asked about church halls. If these are held upon trust by some individuals for religious purposes they will be exempted, but there again it is impossible to deal with particular cases without knowing the particular facts of those cases.

Sir D. HERBERT: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the question of chancels which are vested so often in the lay rector?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will consider the point certainly, but I do not think that anything will arise out of the consideration. There was one other substantial point put to me, and that was with regard to the residences of certain ministers of religion. This is a matter dealt with specifically in the Income Tax Acts La this sense—that under the Act of 1921, relief was not extended in the case of land which was in the use and enjoyment of a person whose total annual income from all sources, estimated in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Acts, amounted to more than £150. There would be cases where charities and religious bodies would have houses in which persons were living with salaries of over £150, and in those cases there would be no exemption. Unless one is going to depart from the Income Tax code in this matter one must leave it in the way in which it has been worked out for Income Tax purposes. I do not think that the case of the country parson or the parson in a small town will be a very hard one, because it is not
likely that the land value of the vicarage will be very high. In most cases it is impossible to sell the vicarage—at any rate it cannot be sold by the parson. It cannot be sold except under an Act of Parliament. Powers have to be acquired and consents have to be obtained from the bishop, and the patron and from a lot of people; and it is questionable whether there is any market price for it at all. But I appreciate that there is a difficulty which I have not looked into, and which arises out of the complicated legal procedure necessary in order to sell ecclesiastical land.

Sir D. HERBERT: May I tell the Solicitor-General that I, myself, not long ago, took some part in selling a vicarage in a town in order that it might be pulled down and the site used, and sold it for a very large sum of money?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, but before it was sold there was either an order of the Privy Council for the purpose of combining two parishes, or else there was an order by the bishop, and the consent of the patron and other persons had to be obtained in order to permit the sale to take place under Statute. It is that statutory difficulty which I should like to look into, in order to see what the position is in the light of what my attention has been directed to to-day.

Sir D. HERBERT: A very small difficulty.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: A question was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) with regard to a sisterhood of the Church of England who run private schools for girls where fees are charged—I think he had in mind the Wantage case. That, I am afraid, falls under the head of private schools, and is another case which would not be exempted. I think I have dealt with all the points which were put to me.

Mr. PYBUS: Referring to church halls, does not the Solicitor-General consider that they should be exempted if they are let solely for concerts or other amusements?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot answer questions of that kind without having particulars of the precise cases which hon. Members have in mind. I
cannot give an answer on particular case. I can only state the principle upon which the matter will be decided. Where they are, within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts, used for charitable purposes only, the answer is of course that they would be exempt with very rare exceptions.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: May I ask a question with regard to schools in Scotland? Supposing that the rent paid is rent for the full time use of a building as a school, what is the difference between that case and the case of a building which is only used part-time as a school—a building, say, in which education is given, but, in which some rooms are used for other purposes? What would be the purposes which would entitle such a building to exemption?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: In every case it must eventually be a question of fact as to whether or not the building is used for charitable purposes only, and I am afraid that it is impossible to give definite answers on hypothetical cases. If I attempted to do so I should be liable to mislead the Committee. There is the other case which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham) with regard to the Independent Labour Party. I have no doubt that if they can satisfy the commissioners that they exist for charitable purposes only, they will be granted the benefit which they desire to have.

Mr. SANDHAM: May I remind the Solicitor-General that the Independent Labour Party is the most potent force for good in this country, and that it is the organisation which gave that Labour party its existence?

Viscountess ASTOR: It is not charitable, anyhow.

Mr. WISE: I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the last point raised, because this Debate has been so peaceful, so comfortable and so comforting to most hon. Members, that I hesitate to raise such a Controversial issue. But I would point out that, as this exemption is drawn, while it seems to cover a great number of organisations and bodies which exist for educational purposes, it is not clear that it exempts bodies whose purpose is educational in the political sense. I am not referring to one or
other of the political parties. I am not speaking for the Independent Labour Party or the Labour party or any other party. But, obviously, most of these bodies, even if they are not charities within the meaning of the Act, are very far from being profit-making, and it would seem that any exemption which applies to churches, chapels and church halls should also apply to halls used partly for political education and partly for workers educational classes and concerts and things of that sort. I think there is a perfectly fair case to be made out for such an exemption, and that it could be justified on precisely the same lines and by the same general arguments as the exemptions already made.
I wish to thank the Solicitor-General and the Government for having met to a considerable extent two classes of cases in regard to which Amendments have been placed upon the Paper by Members of all parties. First, there is the case of the allotments but I wish to point out the anomalous position in which some allotments have been left. Under the original exemption, allotments owned by local authorities are exempted from the tax. That exemption covers about a quarter of the total. Under the Amendment at present under discussion, allotments which are owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or by any body coming under the general heading of charities, colleges and so forth, are also exempted. I think the Amendment also exempts allotment societies which happen to be registered as friendly societies. I am told that there are some such societies registered under the Friendly Societies Act. I do not know whether that brings them within the terms of the Amendment but if so they are also exempt. A considerable number of allotments however are run by allotment societies which own the land themselves—and on the whole these are the most active, the best organised, and the most effective allotment societies—and which are registered not under the Friendly Societies Act but under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act.
This point is illustrative of the complication of the law in regard to this matter and the danger of dealing with a whole class of diverse cases by reference to other Acts. As I understand the position of the societies to which I refer, while they are exempt from Income Tax
under Schedule C and Schedule D, they are not exempt under Schedule A. But because of the purpose for which they are formed, and because of the generally low income of most of their members, they have—I do not know under what particular section in the Income Tax Acts—special privileges from the Inland Revenue authorities. Under these arrangements they pay half tax on half assessment, that is to say they pay about a quarter of the Income Tax which would be levied on the income from their land if it were used for -other purposes. Despite that concession under the Income Tax Acts, it appears, on a legal reading of the Amendment as it stands, that they would not be exempt in this case. Moreover, the mere fact of that special con-cession under the Income Tax Acts will make the Amendment, which I understand hon. Members below the Gangway are going to move, less helpful in their case than in the case of anybody else. Their assessment under Schedule A will be so much smaller than it otherwise would be, that when the subtraction has been made, by the very difficult mathematical calculation which hon. Members propose to propound later, the relief which they will get will be correspondingly less.
I do not wish to go into that point now, but I ask the Government, between now and the Report stage, to give consideration to this anomaly, the creation of which I am sure is not any part of their intention. Already they have covered three-quarters of the cases. It is not sufficient to say that these societies will be exempted because they will be let off tax on the cultivation value. Many of the societies which own land have had to buy it close to towns or in the middle of towns, frequently at high prices, because of the possibility of building value, and at prices out of all proportion to the cultivation value. I am sure it is not the desire of the Government to put any taxation on allotments, and, as they have already removed from one-half to two-thirds of the allotments from the scope of the Bill, I hope they wall find it possible to meet us in this matter.
There is one other case to which I wish to draw attention. The Government have met the Amendment on the Paper in regard to the exemption of colleges,
universities, and other educational institutions not carried on for profit and assisted, many of them, from public funds, in a most generous and comprehensive manner in respect both of the land on which their buildings stand and the land that they own, but as a matter of fact in the case of universities and colleges, which derive a considerable part of their income from scholarships and exhibitions for the very large number of undergraduates who would not get a university education but for that fact, a great deal of their land is let on 99 years' leases, and as far as I can read the Act the income from such land would be liable to tax.
In the case of my own college, Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, I understand that nearly £1,000 a year would be liable to be paid in tax on the income from land which is let on a 99 years' lease. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury shakes his head. I have read very carefully the reliefs, and I am assured by others who have also studied the question that Clause 20, which is the Clause which may apply in this case, can be read in two or three ways. It is the most obscure, complicated and lax Clause in the whole Bill, and it has not been discussed in the House, possibly because no one but the Solicitor-General understood what it meant. I suggest that, having met the case of the universities, colleges and other educational institutions in principle, whether or not by some conceivable reading or interpretation of Clause 20 or any other Clause, it would be very much more satisfactory if the point was covered by a specific Amendment. There is no advantage in leaving these things open to chance.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hate to butt in on this happy family party, where everybody is getting all that they want, but I do not quite know whether someone ought not to ask the Government exactly what these concessions and exemptions are costing the country. If the Church of England, and if the Church of Rome, and if the Nonconformist churches and charitable organisations of this country are all getting a finger in the pie, might we not have some idea as to how deep the finger is going? Whenever on previous occasions when Finance Bills have been under discussion in this House concessions have been made, we have had from the Government an estimate of what they
would cost if they were going to refuse them, and an estimate of what the concessions would cost by the person who was demanding them, if he thought he was going to get them. On this occasion, the figures have been left in the background, and we do not know with how large a sum of money we are endowing the Churches of this country.
As I ventured to tell the Committee yesterday, Mr. Gladstone held the now quite unorthodox view that any remission of taxation was the equivalent of a grant to the person or body getting the remission, and here we are giving grants of substantial amounts to the teaching of different religious sects in this country. I do not approve of it, of course, but the majority of people seem, to approve of it, and I think we ought to know the extent of the endowment. It ought to be realised in the country how much the Church is getting, and it ought to be realised how much the Church of Rome is getting from all that property around Westminster Pro-Cathedral. I do not think: it is fair that the country should not appreciate the sacrifices that other taxpayers are making for the benefit of these religious bodies. But if we are agreed to make all this sacrifice for the teaching of true religion, I cannot understand why a distinction should be drawn between the true religion of the Socialist and the true religion of the Christian. We have always been told that Christianity and Socialism are one.

Viscountess ASTOR: Who told you?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have heard hon. Members on the Government Bench perorating on the great question of whether Socialism or Christianity came first. The moving perorations that I have heard on that question alone should have decided half this country to become Socialists.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that Christianity says that you should love your neighbour as yourself, and that Socialists say that you should hate capitalists?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Brotherly love is the foundation of Socialism. I am speaking of brotherly love in a Socialist Sunday School.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): I think we had better get back to the more mundane subject of the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was perhaps slightly out of order, but the Amendment is one for the benefit of religious bodies, I do not know how wide the definition of religion goes, but I feel certain that it ought to include that religion which is represented so largely on these benches. The little local preaching that I have done has always been done in a Socialist Sunday School. I cannot see why a building in which is carried on the charitable and educational work of teaching children the way they should think should be deprived of the benefits of this largesse that is being scattered broadcast. The real danger is that once you take to endowing the innoculation of the people of this country with specific dogmas, there is no end to it. Spiritualism, theosophy, Socialism—they have all got just as good a right as the Catholic Church.

Dr. MORGAN: I want to ask the Solicitor-General whether he can make the position with regard to the Catholic Church a little clearer. In England the property of the Church is not vested in a trust but is really vested in the diocese, of which the Bishop is the head, and I would like to know whether in the case of the exemption that he mentioned, the Bishop came under that classification of exemption. I want to ask whether the Government cannot make this exemption Clause a little tighter. I am a sectarian. I believe in a certain religion, but I also believe in the taxation of land values and that the principle of land ownership is wrong. That being so, while one would be in favour of the exemption of certain sites in particular areas which are used definitely for religious and educational purposes, I want to ask whether it is right, granting that the principle of land ownership is wrong, that investments in land by either religious or educational bodies should be exempt from this tax.
I want to point out exactly how far we are going. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), whose predilection for land value taxation is as great as is his puzzling prejudice against Catholicism, mentioned in his two speeches
against exemption the question of the Pro-Cathedral or the alleged Pro-Cathedral, of Westminster. Why did he not go a little further? If he went across the river, or if he entered the Library of this House and looked across the river, he could see there land owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, a report on whose property eight years ago is a standing disgrace to anybody who says that they are going to use the income derived from that morass of vice and immorality for religious purposes. [Interruption.] Ask the people who were on that Committee for the confidential report on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' slum property in London.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Member think that the Roman Catholic Church owns equally bad things from which they get money?

Dr. MORGAN: My remarks apply equally to any Church which makes an income from investments in land. It does not matter which Church it is, and I only mention the Ecclesiastical Commissioners because my right hon. and gallant Friend in front of me twice mentioned a particular kind of sectarian body. I practise in Paddington, and there is a certain street there known as Eastbourne Terrace, which is a regular morass of the vice and immorality such as you find near any London terminus. That land is owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is leased to people and hotel proprietors, who use those hotels for one purpose and one purpose only. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Bishop of London's estate derive their income from that land, and under this Bill—[Interruption.] I know it, because I am on the Paddington Borough Council, and constant reports are coming to us about this particular bit of land. Constantly private complaints and police complaints are coming to us, asking us to get the ground landlords to deal with this particular type of land. The particular people who own this land are the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, jointly with the Bishop of London's Paddington estate, and under this Bill that land, the income of which is derived from immoral purposes——

Sir CHARLES OMAN: On a point of Order. Is not this tedious repetition?
We have heard this particular statement about the Ecclesiastical Commissioners repeated four times.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know that I have heard the argument repeated, but I have heard certain words repeated in the course of the argument.

7.0 p.m.

Dr. MORGAN: I am always glad when a representative of a classical university interrupts me, especially when he is a Conservative, because it means that I am getting beneath his skin. I have heard the hon. Gentleman himself do worse in Debates in this House than I am doing, inexperienced as I am. My point is this. This land is going to be exempt from this tax. If land ownership is immoral and against the principles of justice, I cannot see why this land and similar land should be exempt from land value taxation. I do not want to vote against the Government, but I am sorry that the Government are exempting so many people from this tax. I have mentioned a religious body and I would now like to mention an educational body. Near the constituency I represent is a body known as the Trustees of Dulwich College, an alleged educational body. I am not saying that the product of Dulwich College is not a good educational product——

Sir F. HALL: What do you mean by "an alleged educational product"?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with an educational institution. This deals with charitable institutions.

Dr. MORGAN: I understood that this was a wide discussion, and that educational purposes were included. I am glad I am getting these interruptions from the other side, and I expected that one. This body is on the border of my constituency, and in the same borough. It owns land given as a trust by an actor in the time of Shakespeare for the specific purpose of the education of poor boys. In the course of centuries this educational endowment, like many others, has got into the hands of the rich, and now this educational body, with the increased value in the land resulting from those investments, is deliberately using their monopoly of land owned by them to keep
overcrowding in other parts of Camber-well, and to keep the land owned by them in Dulwich at a high price by keeping large houses there, and seeing that there shall be no flats. Instead of a place like Ruskin Manor being used for the housing of workers, it is used as a boarding house with a large private golf course.
Every statement I am making here tonight can be verified up to the hilt. There was a law case quite recently In which Dulwich College were deliberately using their power as landowners to prevent the property depreciating in value, as they call it, by being let in flats. What they call depreciation of property means that in other parts of Camberwell—and the Camberwell Borough Council have built no houses for the last 10 years—there is overcrowding, with all the consequencies, such as disease and immorality, which it brings. But the parvenus of Dulwich, through the machinations of the Dulwich College trustees, keep the land valuable and this land, the income from which is being used for education, is land which is being used to the detriment of other people in the vicinity, is land to be exempt from land value taxation. I would have liked the Government to have been harsh on this point and to see that such land was not exempt. [Interruption.] These interruptions are very good to me, because I am a very inexperienced speaker and, when I get interruptions from the Conservative side, it means I am doing well. I would agree that, when the land is used by an educational body for a playground or by a church for the specific purpose of religion, it should be exempt, but I am not in agreement with the view of this Amendment, although I am a supporter of the Government. It is because I believe in loyalty and co-operation that, being a democrat, I support the majority of my party. I, personally, would have liked to have seen land used by educational and religious bodies as an investment not exempted by the Government from this tax, and I hope that future Governments will see that these bodies have to pay their tribute to the public purse.

Sir F. HALL: I have heard many speeches in this House, but I have never heard an hon. Member pat himself so much on the back or so pleased with his
dissertation as the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Morgan). No one would have thought from his speech that the Dulwich College authorities utilise, as they do, the whole of their income, with the exception of a few eleemosynary pensions, for the education of over 3,500 pupils in all parts of London. It is true that the authorities—and they are perfectly right—have allocated to themselves the right to say what buildings should be put up in Dulwich, and what should not. They have done their best to maintain the position, in order that they should receive sufficient income from their properties to educate not only poor children but those of various classes. The whole of their work is not confined to Dulwich or to Camberwell. Part of it is, of course, in the district represented by the hon. Member, who, apparently, does not appreciate their efforts. They have considered it right and advisable for the protection of the property handed down to them as trustees to utilise it as they consider best for the educational purpose for which it was intended.
The speech of the hon. Member was wanting in appreciation of the great efforts of that educational authority. It may interest hon. Members to know that in various parts of Southwark, which is recognised as one of those parts of London which should receive consideration, a large portion of the income of the Dulwich College estate is spent on the education of the poor children of Southwark. The Dulwich College authorities have to submit their accounts to the educational authorities of this country, with the exception of a few eleemosynary pensions. I challenge the hon. Member to appeal to the educational authorities of the country and ask them if they are satisfied. If they are satisfied with the manner in which the trustees discharge their duties, then I leave ft to the hon. Gentleman to stew in his own juice.

Mr. LOGAN: I am a little anxious about the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should like to have it made clear in order that there may be no ambiguity. Paragraph (e) in the Bill provides exemption for land
used wholly or mainly for the purpose of public religious worship and owned by trustees for that purpose or by the representative of any religious body.
I understood that the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would cover all the difficulties, and I am anxious to get definite information on this particular point. I would like to know whether this Amendment exempts the land exempted in paragraph (e) of the Bill, which deals with religious worship. Is the right of the churches to this exemption being continued in the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I have not a legal mind, and I am not able to find in this Amendment the assurance which I desire, and so I should be glad to get from those who are acquainted with this subject, an assurance that this class of case is fully covered in the Amendment. I trust that, in order to avoid any ambiguity, we shall get a guarantee to that effect.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: The hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Morgan) who has had medical experience, will agree with me that there are occasions when there should not be an excessive temperature on the part of the patient. The introduction of some of the matters which have lately been discussed has given rise to a temperature not altogether desirable in a discussion of this kind. I want to take the Committee to the church of the open air, to refer to a point which was raised by the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), and to ask the Solicitor-General one or two questions on allotments. The Amendment provides certain exemptions. It has already been brought to the notice of the Committee that there are many allotment societies which, although they are not wholly exempt from the payment of Schedule A Income Tax, have secured from Somerset House a concession by which they pay practically one-quarter of the ordinary amount of tax, and they are wholly exempt from any payment under Schedule B.
The Chancellor informed the Committee, although there was scarcely need to do it, of his great sympathy with regard to playing-fields. He has also, as we would naturally expect, expressed his desire that nothing in this Bill will cramp the development of allotments. It is important in connection with the policy of the Minister of Agriculture, under which unemployed men are being encouraged to go upon the land, and where Government
assistance is being given to them, that no difficulties should be placed in the way of the development of the allotment system, especially in the larger towns. I am speaking as a supporter of the principle of the Bill and as one who is not anxious to allow any loophole by which people will be able for a period to let their land, which should pay its proper share of tax, for allotment purposes and, having held it during a time of rising values, suddenly sell it for building purposes, having escaped, through any exemption of allotments, their fair share of the tax. I realise the difficulty of the Chancellor and his advisers in desiring to obtain the fruit of the tax from the landlord without at the same time doing any injustice to the extension of allotments.
I want to suggest one or two courses which I trust the Chancellor will consider. An allotment association does not occupy quite the same position as a local authority. It can, however, be registered as a friendly society, in which case it will come under the Amendment, or it may be registered under the Provident and Industrial Societies Acts. It is not a profit-making association. It consists of a limited number of shareholders who pay a nominal sum of one shilling or 2s. 6d., and any profits which may accrue are distributed for the general benefit of the Association. I am anxious that the allotment movement should not in any sense be cramped by the Amendment. I fear that under its provision there is not sufficient safeguards for allotment societies. In the Midland area, of which I have the most right to speak, this is a very powerful and growing institution, and we all desire to see its extension. I therefore ask the Chancellor whether, in the case of the ordinary allotment association, which does not exist for private profit, which owns land which it means to retain for allotment purposes, but which it can sell if it were so disposed for building purposes at a profit, he will try and meet the situation in which they find themselves. There seem to be two alternatives. The first is to make the tax retrospective on the owner when allotment land comes into the market as building land.

The CHAIRMAN: I am doubtful whether we can discuss allotments now. Last night we discussed an Amendment
dealing with allotments, and I intimated that we would deal with the whole subject then.

Mr. WINTERTON: I am pointing out that certain allotment associations will probably come within the exemptions under this Amendment, because they are exempt from Income Tax, as they are registered under the Friendly Societies Act, and urging that it is desirable that the scope of the Amendment should be widened to meet the case of other allotment associations which, though equally deserving, are excluded by the working; of the Amendment. Therefore, I suggest that I am within the bounds of the Amendment which we are discussing.

The CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but last night when I called an Amendment dealing with allotments, I said that that would cover any other Amendments dealing with the same subject. We discussed allotments last night.

Mr. WINTERTON: The Solicitor-General, in opening the Debate this afternoon, indicated the four categories which would be covered by the Amendment, and among them were "other purposes beneficial to the community." I suggest that the question of allotments comes in that category.

The CHAIRMAN: If that be so, I shall have to allow discussion on 15 more Amendments.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This point was raised earlier, and Mr. Dunnico expressly said that he would not take the Amendment next on the Paper, which proposes to insert words dealing with allotments registered under certain Acts. He expressly refused to take it.

Mr. WISE: But he said that we might argue the question, and have a general discussion on this Amendment.

Mr. WINTERTON: If I may continue, I will not keep the Committee more than a few moments. The second alternative for the consideration of the Government is that they should be prepared to exempt land used for allotment purposes, or make a remission of taxation in oases where the land is held on lease from a private owner and there is no breaking clause, and that they should treat all allotment land, whether in rural districts or town areas, as agricultural
land for the purpose of this Bill. I should be glad if the Solicitor-General could clarify the situation so far as the Amendment applies to the general question of allotments.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I dealt with allotments last night, and it would not be right for me to occupy the time of the Committee in dealing with that subject once more. With regard to the question of the property of the Roman Catholic community, my own view is that this is fully covered by the Amendment in its present form, but, if the hon. Member has any specific doubt in his mind, I will look into the matter again in order to make certain.

Mr. MARKHAM: May I put two questions to clear up the position of museums and art galleries? As soon as this Amendment is accepted, national museums will be exempt under paragraph (a) of the original Clause; corporation museums under paragraph (b); and a certain number of museums, which are now exempt from Schedule A Income Tax, will be exempt under the Amendment. Is it the intention of the Government to exempt all museums that are open to the public free of charge? In cases that are under consideration by the courts, and have yet to be decided, such, for instance, as the Montrose Antiquarian Society, will the exemption apply to future decisions as well as to decisions that have been given in the past?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The exemptions from Income Tax by virtue of the Sections mentioned in the Amendment will of course apply to Land Tax as to Income Tax, whether they are past decisions of the court or future decisions. With regard to the question whether it is the intention to exempt museums to which the public are admitted free of charge, they will probably be included under the general charitable exemptions, but I can imagine cases which are in private ownership, to which the public are admitted free of charge, which would not be exempt, because they would not be charities. Apart from such cases, I think that most of them will be exempt. I cannot give the hon. Member further information without knowing the precise conditions of tenure and the trust under which the museums are held, and the particulars of any case he has in mind.

Mr. MARKHAM: I take it that museums owned by antiquarian and learned societies, which are open to the public, will be exempt under the Amendment, but that museums owned by private individuals will not be exempt. I ask that society and private museums which are open to the public free of charge, should be exempt.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 19, line 23, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
(e) is owned by any religious body or community or charitable body, or by trustees for or any representatives of such body, and either—
(i) is used wholly or mainly for public religious worship or as a place of residence for ministers, officers, or employees of such body;
(ii) is used wholly or mainly by persons living together as a religious community;
(iii) forms part of the property or endowment of such religious hotly or community or charitable body and which, or the income or profit of which, is used wholly for the purposes of such religious body or community or charitable body;
(iv) is owned by or vested in trustees on behalf of and is used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes, being a university, university college, college, hall of any university, training college, hospital, sanatorium, convalescent home, asylum, orphanage, hostel, school, almshouse, or a colony or institution for the care of the blind, deaf, deafened, dumb, crippled, aged, destitute, mentally defective, or tuberculous patients;
(v) is held by any governing body or body of persons for charitable, educational, or religious purposes who are exempt from Income Tax under the provisions of Section thirty-seven of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and amending Acts."
In accordance with the arrangement made with the sanction of the Chair I propose to move this Amendment formally, with the necessary alteration to make it fit after the words last inserted.

Mr. KELLY: I think it is an outrage on the Committee——

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: On a point of Order. I am sure the hon. Member will realise that no discourtesy is intended towards the Committee. The position is this. We were allowed by the Deputy-Chairman, when he was in the Chair some time ago, to have a general discussion both on the contents of this Clause and on the Amendment which has just been passed.
I am sure none of us wish to do anything that might be embarrassing to the Chair or contrary to the agreement that was then arrived at by the permission of the Chairman. I am sure the hon. Member will realise that there is no discourtesy; we are proceeding according to an agreement under the Ruling of the Chair.

Mr. KELLY: That may have happened. I have been engaged in another part of the House on other work and did not hear that Ruling, and I want now to hear from the Mover of the Amendment, or somebody who is supporting it, an explanation of each part of it.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not intend to interrupt the hon. Member's speech, but I did understand that there was an understanding that these Amendments would be put formally and voted upon, and such understandings are usually accepted and acted upon.

Mr. KELLY: That may be, and I usually accept them even when they go against me, but, when I find the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) prepared to stand up and say he moves formally and without the slightest explanation an Amendment of this length, all I can say is that he is abusing his position——

Sir D. HERBERT: On a point of personal explanation. The hon. Member, I submit, has no right to say such things, after having been away from the House, in view of the fact that I spoke on this subject for at least 10 minutes.

Mr. KELLY: May I say that the hon. Member was not out of the House? He was out of the Chamber, engaged in one of the Committee rooms on other work. The hon. Member for Watford has not even taken the trouble to remind us of the number of paragraphs in the Amendment, or to explain one of the institutions which are affected. The Amendment refers to universities, university colleges, the hall of any university, training colleges, and the rest, and not a word has been said about them. There is also a reference to the residence of a minister and I would ask what minister——

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is it not evident that the hon. Member is confusing himself and the Committee? We have heard all this.

Sir D. HERBERT: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that the Committee have decided that these Amendments should be put without discussion? That was the decision of the Committee, which is binding upon hon. Members.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid no decision on that point was actually registered, but I understand that was the arrangement which was accepted by the Committee.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I think the Committee are placed in a great difficulty by this Amendment. I suggest that we have already decided the Question of Subsection (5) by the last Amendment which we put into the Bill. I fail to understand how, after we have decided without a Division the point about the societies that are exempt from Income Tax under Schedule A, we can again vote upon that Question under the Amendment which is now before the Committee. I submit that the Committee have already decided this Question, and that, if a new Question is to be put, at least the Sub-section dealing with that particular point must be amended, after we have already decided it by a vote.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Of course, the decision has not been recorded in writing, but the understanding clearly was that, the general discussion having been taken on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, a decision would afterwards be taken on this Amendment without discussion of it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As I understood it, the position was that the general question covered by these Amendments should be discussed, and that, if the Committee were not satisfied with the Amendment of the Government, it would be open to hon. Members who had put down Amendments to move them. As I understand it, the Committee are satisfied with the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not appreciate, therefore, how this Amendment can really be moved.

Mr. G. HARDIE: Is it the custom that a Member whose name is not attached
to an Amendment should be allowed to move it without at the same time explaining what it is?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can move the Amendment and he can, in accordance with the understanding of the Committee, move it formally, which he has done. I understand, also, that it was an agreement on the part of the Committee that this Amendment should be put. The Amendment has been moved and I understood there would be a vote on it.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I was not present when that agreement was arrived at, but I submit that no agreement can be reached which sets at defiance the Standing Orders. I submit that Sub-section (5) and the Amendment which you have just read out from the Chair cover the same Question which was submitted to the Committee and voted upon a few minutes ago, and, the Committee having decided that Question, they cannot be asked to vote upon it a second time. If this Amendment is to be put under an agreement, I submit that the Mover must at least leave out that part of it which deals with the same subject matter as has already been decided.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not want the Committee to be confused. What the right hon. Gentleman has just said would be true if this Amendment were exactly the same as the one which we have dealt with, but it seems to differ slightly.

Mr. OLDFIELD: As I was one of those implicated, I may say that it is perfectly true that there was an understanding that, if we had a full discussion on the Government's Amendment, there was to be no discussion on the subsequent Amendments which cover that point. But we on our side made it fairly clear, I should have thought, that we did not expect to be moving our Amendment, and we thought it as likely as not that the Opposition would not move theirs. There was no understanding that the Opposition should in any case move their Amendment without discussion. The only understanding was that, if at the end of our long discussion on the Government Amendment the Opposition still wished to move their Amendment, then they would do it.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee will appreciate that an understanding was arrived at, and I always like to see such understandings accepted and acted upon by hon. Members, but I am not in a position to apply the Closure of my own volition to any hon. Member who does not desire to fall in with the understanding, and therefore I call upon the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. WISE: What would be the position if the Committee reject this Amendment? The Committee has just passed the previous Amendment on the Paper covering not only Sub-section (5) but, as I read it, most of the other points.

Sir D. HERBERT: But we do not read it so.

Mr. WISE: I was putting my point to the Chairman. Surely the whole of the proceedings will be thrown into confusion if we now reject the Amendment we have just agreed to. I have been present during the whole of the discussion, and, if there was an arrangement, it was that these other Amendments should be put if the Amendment we were primarily discussing, the one in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were rejected. There was no proposal to put two Amendments covering wholly or partially the same points.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As I was the unfortunate person who proposed the arrangement, I should like to say that that was not so. What I said was distinctly this. When the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) started the discussion, I said I thought it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we had a wide discussion covering not only the Government Amendment but the others, but that my hon. Friends reserved

the right, if they were not satisfied, formally to move their Amendment and to divide the Committee.

Mr. WISE: May I submit that they have withdrawn their Amendments and have not moved them, and that we are discussing a new Amendment which has been moved with the wording altered after discussion of the previous Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: The Chairman had decided that the two Amendments should be discussed together. The first one has not been moved and the second one has. This Amendment differs in many respects from the one already disposed of by the Committee. I think the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) may proceed.

Mr. DENMAN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put,"but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. KELLY: I think what has taken place is a full justification for the action which I have taken. The Mover of the Amendment took exception to the interpretation which has been put upon the Amendment by those sitting on this side, but he had not the courage to explain what was meant by the proposal. The hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) has taken this opportunity of forcing the Committee to a Division upon an Amendment which he had no part or lot in putting on the Amendment Paper. We have not had one word of explanation of this Amendment, and, if it is going to a Division, and as no one seems to have the courage or capacity to explain it, I shall take this opportunity of voting against it.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 288.

Division No. 350.]
AYES.
[7.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.


Albery, Irving James
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Boyce, Leslie


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Bracken, B.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Balniel, Lord
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Allen, Lt. Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brass, Captain Sir William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Beaumont, M. W.
Briscoe, Richard George


Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Broadbent, Colonel J.


Aske, Sir Robert
Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Astor, Viscountess
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Atholl, Duchess of
Bird, Ernest Roy
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Atkinson, C.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Butler, R. A.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cadagan, Major Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Campbell, E. T.
Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsbotham, H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of
Remer, John R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtimth, S.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Reynolds, Col Sir James


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Chapman, Sir S.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ross, Ronald D.


Christie, J. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard, Bury, Colonel C. K.
Salmon, Major I.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sendeman, Sir N. Stewart


Colman, N. C. D.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D


Colville, Major D. J.
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Skelton, A. N.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Crichton, Stuart, Lord C.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Somerset, Thomas


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cunllffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Locker Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lymington, Viscount
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomas, Major L. S. (Kings Norton)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Thompson, Luke


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, Sir F.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-t.-M.)
Margesson, Captain H D.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marjoribanks, Edward
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Faite, Sir Bertram G.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Train, J.


Ferguson, Sir John
Meller, R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Turton, Robert Hugh


Flson, F. G. Clavering
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wells, Sydney R.


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Muirhead, A. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsfid)
Withers, Sir John James


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Connor, T. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Womerstey, W. J.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
O'Neill, Sir H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Greene, W. p. Crawford
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Penny, Sir George



Gritten, W. G. Howard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Major the Marquess of Titchfield


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brothers, M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayishirs)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Benson, G.
Buchanan, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Burgess, F. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Birkett, W. Norman
Calne, Hall-, Derwent


Angell, Sir Norman
Blindell, James
Cameron, A. G.


Arnott, John
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Cape, Thomas


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bowen, J. W.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S W)


Ayles, Walter
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Chuter, Daniel


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Broad, Francis Alfred
Church, Major A. G.


Barnes, Alfred John
Brockway, A. Fenner
Clarke, J. S.


Barr, James
Bromfield, William
Cluse, W. S.


Batey, Joseph
Bromley, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brooke, W.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour




Cove, William G.
Lang, Gordon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Daggar, George
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dallas, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ritson, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lawrence, Susan
Romeril, H. G.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Rowson, Guy


Day, Harry
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Devlin, Joseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Samuel, H. Waiter (Swansea, West)


Duncan, Charles
Lees, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Ede, James Chuter
Leonard, W.
Sandham, E.


Edge, Sir William
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lindley, Fred W.
Scott, James


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Scurr, John


Elmley, Viscount
Logan, David Gilbert
Sexton, Sir James


England, Colonel A.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Foot, Isaac
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Freeman, Peter
Lunn, William
Shield, George William


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shillaker, J. F.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shinwell, E.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McElwee, A.
Simmons, C. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gibson, H. M, (Lanes, Mossley)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gill, T. H.
McKinlay, A.
Sinkinson, George


Glassey, A. E.
MacLaren, Andrew
Sitch, Charles H.


Gossling, A. G.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall. N.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gould, F.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McShane, John James
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gray, Milner
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Manning, E. L.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mansfield, W.
Sorensen, R.


Groves, Thomas E.
March, S.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marcus, M.
Stephen, Campbell


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Markham, S. F.
Strauss, G. R


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marley, J.
Sullivan, J.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marshall, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mathers, George
Taylor, R A. (Lincoln)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Harbord, A.
Maxton, James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Messer, Fred
Tillett, Ben


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mills, J. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Harris, Percy A.
Milner, Major J.
Toole, Joseph


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Montague, Frederick
Tout, W. J.


Haycock, A. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Townend, A. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Morley, Ralph
Vaughan, David


Hayes, John Henry
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walkden, A. G.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mort, D. L.
Walker, J.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Muff, G.
Wallace, H. W.


Herriotts, J.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Watkins, F. C.


Hicks, Ernest George
Murnin, Hugh
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D, (Rhondda)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hoffman, P. C.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hollins, A.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hopkin, Daniel
Oldfield, J. R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
West, F. R.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Westwood, Joseph


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Paling, Wilfrid
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Palmer, E. T.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Perry, S. F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Price, M. P.
Wise, E. F.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Kinley, J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson



Kirkwood, D.
Raynes, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Knight, Holford
Richards, R.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Thurtle.


Question, "That the Clause' be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I select is the last but one on page 2,288 of the Amendment Paper, standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) No tax shall be chargeable in respect of any land unit for any period during which the unit—


(a) is used as a park, garden, or open space which is open to the public as of right;
(b) is used as a churchyard or burial ground;
(c) is land which is a disused burial ground within the meaning of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, on which no building has been erected."

This Amendment includes the words "is used as a park, garden or open space."

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.0 p.m.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: There was a discussion last night with regard to playing-fields, but the Amendment which stood in the names of myself and other Members, not only of any party but above the Gangway and on the other side of the House, was not reached. The Solicitor-General paid little or no attention to it, but devoted practically the whole of his speech to the discussion of an Amendment which was peculiarly open to some of his devastating arguments; but he quite clearly stated his view, and, as we understood it, the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government, that our Amendment was one which the Government themselves viewed with favour. Whatever may have been the figures of the Division on the Amendment which was before the Committee, there is not the slightest doubt that the vast majority of the Committee last night was in favour, not only of the principle, but of most of the details which were included in the two Amendments. In the course of a somewhat confused discussion, varied by an irrelevant point of Order, it was extremely difficult to ascertain what the position was as it was left by the Government. I do not wish to weary the Committee, but would like to remind them of what I said. After the very interesting
and sympathetic speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), I said, referring to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of tile Exchequer and his statement:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a conciliatory statement, but I very much fear, unless we carry with us the party above the Gangway, we shall not represent, as one wishes specially to do in a matter of this kind, the House of Commons as a whole.
My last sentence was this:
If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared in effect to accept the Amendment in the name of hon. Members below the Gangway and myself, I shall be delighted to accept that offer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1931; cols. 382–3, Vol. 253.]
That was the offer of conferring with the Government and, preferably, also with the official Opposition in the House, to see if we could arrive at a concordat on this most important national question. After that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply, did not, I am bound to say, display what I hope are his real intentions at their best, if I may put it in that way, and, therefore, the Division which took place did not really represent the feeling of the vast majority of the Committee. It is quite open for either myself and hon. Members with whom I act, or for the right hon. Gentleman, or any other Members above the Gangway, to enter into a conference. That is often a very desirable and, indeed, a necessary part of our procedure, but I would very much prefer, and I am sure the Committee as a whole would prefer, that the Committee, and, indeed, the country, which is deeply interested in this matter, should be put publicly in possession of the real views of the Government with regard to that Amendment. I say that in the interest of the House and of the great object with which we are all concerned. I hope, therefore, that, before the House loses touch with this Clause in Committee, the Solicitor-General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will inform the Committee of the specific intentions of the Government with regard to this most important matter.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I have just refreshed my memory, while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, as to what was said last night. He spoke of a rather confused discussion, but I really do not
see that I could have made my position clearer than I did. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, assumed too much just now when he expected that I should accept his Amendment. I made it quite clear last night that, although he had put forward the germ of a solution of this question, I could not accept it in the form in which it appeared on the Paper, and I gave one or two reasons. I pointed out that its effect would be to admit certain organisations which I could not possibly admit. I said I was quite prepared to give an undertaking that between then and the Report stage we would hammer away at the germ of an idea which is in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and see if we could arrive at a form which would be generally satisfactory. With regard to the question of a conference between the three parties in the House, I said I had no objection at all, and I am quite ready within the next few days to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and anyone whom he cares to bring with him, and see if we can arrive at some agreement. As I believe I said last night, I recognise that there is an almost, and perhaps quite, universal feeling in the House in favour of exempting genuine cases, but the Amendment that was considered last night went a great deal further, and as I said then, I am not prepared to exempt racecourses and dog racing, which would certainly be involved if the Amendment were accepted. I say, however, that between now and the Report stage I am open to receive any suggestions, or to meet the right hon. Gentleman or any of his friends and see what we can do to come to an agreement.

Sir D. MACLEAN: If I may, I would add that what I said was that I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared in effect to accept the Amendment, which still stands on the Paper, and which is not open to any of the objections that the right hon. Gentleman has now stated—not one of them; it is clear of them all.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I just point out a verbal matter to the right hon. Gentleman? I think that if he looks at it he will see that paragraph (j) of his Amendment would in fact cover racecourses and dog racing, and what I think
my right hon. Friend means is that, because of the wide scope of the Amendment, it is really beyond the idea of what is commonly understood by playing fields, and that it is impossible to accept it in this form.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that he is prepared to accept what he calls the germ of the Amendment, but that the Amendment contains some words which in his opinion, and in the opinion of the legal advisers of the Government, might carry the Bill far beyond anything which my right hon. Friend contemplates. He certainly does not desire to cover the case of racecourses and dogs. Therefore, I think there is a great deal to be said for the suggestion that between now and the Report stage—I take it that it will not be very long before we come to the Report stage—there should be an opportunity of discussing the actual draft which is to develop this very admirable germ of an idea which my right hon. Friend has been endeavouring to incorporate in the Bill, and probably in the circumstances the matter has been carried as far as it can be carried. I think, also, that my right hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying that the issue was rather confused last night. No one was quite clear as to what had been said—[Interruption.] At any rate, what the right hon. Gentleman has now said is quite clear, and I think that my right hon. Friend and the rest of us will consider it satisfactory.

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask the Solicitor-General a question? He seems to be banking up a terrific amount of work for the Report stage. May I ask if the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to bring before the House a Motion to alter the Guillotine procedure in order to deal with this enormous amount of work?

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss a Guillotine Resolution on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption from death duties in case of land given to National Trust.)

(1) Where any estate or interest in land—

(a) is given, devised, or bequeathed by any person to, and so as to become indefeasibly vested in, the National Trust and is held by that Trust inalienably for the public benefit; or
(b) is given, devised, or bequeathed by any person to, and so as to become indefeasibly vested in, the Commissioners of Works, or a local authority, and accepted by the Commissioners or authority under Section two of the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913;
the Treasury, may, if that person dies after the commencement of this Act, and the estate or interest was the whole estate or interest of that person in the land, remit any duties leviable on or with reference to the death of that person, and no property the duties in respect of which are remitted under this section shall be aggregated with any other property for the purpose of fixing the rate of any estate duty.

(2) In this section the expression "National Trust" means the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty incorporated by the National Trust Act, 1907.—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I have put down this Clause in pursuance of a promise which I made last year to consider this matter. It provides that, where any property is left to the National Trust for the public benefit, or so as to be vested in the Commissioners of Works or a local authority under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Act, Death Duties on that property shall be remitted.

Mr. E. D. SIMOM: I have put down a Clause on behalf of the National Trust to a similar effect. I need hardly say that I heartily welcome the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given exact effect to what we have been asking for, and, on behalf of the National Trust, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman very warmly indeed for having done so, especially at a time like this, when we know how hard it is to get concessions. I am quite satisfied with this concession, and I feel sure that the National Trust also will be satisfied with it.

Mr. EDE: As one whose name was down to a similar Clause last year, I should like to join my thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for meeting us and to remind him that last year when I prophesied, in response to the reply that he then made, that I should be thanking him this year for doing it, we were met with some derisive comments from hon. Members opposite. I am glad to find that my right hon. Friend is still in his place and I am sure that next year we shall be able to look for-ward to seeing him there still benefiting the public.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW GLAUSE,—(Reduction of land value for purposes of assessment to tax.)

(1) For the purpose of the charge of the tax, the land value of every land unit not being a unit comprising agricultural land shall be reduced either—

(a) by a sum equal to four times the annual value of the unit for Income Tax purposes; or
(b) by a sum equal to seven-eighths of the land value of the unit, whichever is the less.

(2) For the purposes of any assessment of land value tax the annual value of a land unit for Income Tax purposes shall be taken to be the annual value of the lands, tenements and hereditaments comprised in the unit which has been adopted for the purposes of Income Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, for the year comprising the first day' of January in the year of charge to which the assessment of land value tax relates:

Provided that, where the area as respects which the annual value has been so adopted as aforesaid is not co-extensive with the area of the unit, the Commissioners shall make such apportionments of annual value as may be necessary to determine the annual value of the unit and, in the case of lauds, tenements and hereditaments as respects which no such annual value has been so adopted as aforesaid, the annual value shall be taken to be of such amount as may be determined by the Commissioners to be the amount at which the annual value of the lands, tenements and hereditaments would have been assessed for the purposes of the said Schedule if they had been assessed to Income Tax thereunder and in the case of lands, tenements and hereditaments comprising any minerals, if no minerals had been comprised therein.

(3) For the purposes of the application of this Section to Scotland—

(a) for the references to lands, tenements and hereditaments there shall be substituted references to lands and heritages;
535
(b) where the annual value of any lands and heritages has been assessed on the basis that local rates in respect thereof are payable by the landlord, that value shall, for the purposes of this Section, be reduced to such amount as would have been assessed if those rates had been payable by the occupier.—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause will not, I think, pass through the Committee with the celerity of the one which has just been incorporated in the Bill. In view of the fact that we are working under restrictions, I shall not occupy more time than is necessary in explaining the Clause and the circumstances that have led to its appearance on the Order Paper. It is to implement a promise that I gave last week to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) that, if no opportunity were given for the discussion of a Clause of a somewhat similar character that stood in his name, the Government would provide such an opportunity. This matter has had a rather chequered career. Amendments, and revised Amendments, and re-revised Amendments dealing with it have appeared in succession on the Paper, and even the Government printers seem to be in a conspiracy against its success. After the welcome that was given to these proposals in the discussion on the Land Tax Resolution and upon the Second Reading of the Bill from the benches below the Gangway, I never expected the opposition that developed a few days later. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, I think on the Second Reading of the Bill, welcomed the land proposals most enthusiastically and expressed his regret that they were of such a moderate character and said his gratification would have been still greater if they had been of a more comprehensive character. The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I can, therefore, understand that to most of the Members on this side of the Gangway and to all the Members on the other side, this Bill is welcome.
He went on to express the criticism to which I have referred that the Measure was not radical enough to satisfy some of his friends. But it is to some other remarks
of the hon. and learned Gentleman that I want particularly to draw attention. He said:
With regard to the tax itself, I should like to say a few words. Frankly, it is undoubtedly an extra tax and an additional burden upon certain taxpayers.… There is only one justification for this additional tax and that is that it is based on the value of the site which has been created by enterprises other than the enterprise of the owner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1931; col. 1824, Vol. 252.]
I quote that, because it is quite evident that at that time it was clear in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman that this was an additional tax; in other words, that it was a double tax. And it was also clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Leader, because his attention was drawn in the course of the Debate to this particular point. After having eulogised these proposals, he made a remark which has been very much in my mind during the Debates of the last fortnight, when he solemnly warned me about the ruin that would come to my proposals if I listened to the claims which, no doubt, I should receive for exemption from the tax. The right hon. Gentleman knew quite well that the tax was a double tax. It was to be a tax in addition to Income Tax, These observations were made after hon. Members had been in possession of the Bill for a week and, therefore, they could not have been under any misapprehension at all.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The speech that I made was made on the Resolution, before the Bill was introduced.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, but, as a matter of fact—I do not know whether this is a breach of confidence or not—he had the Bill two or three days before it was introduced.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When I made the speech and said I had not received the Bill or seen it, I had not seen it. I saw it afterwards.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman spoke on the Financial Resolution. Of course that was before the Bill was printed. When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery made his speech Members of the House had been in possession of the text of the Bill for a week, and, therefore, they
could have been under no misapprehension at all as to what was involved in. these proposals. They understood that it was to be a uniform, flat rate tax, and that it was to be a special tax of a special nature for special reasons. For 40 years the Liberal party had the question of the taxation of land values in the forefront of their programme, and there has never been anything indefinite in the way in which they have presented this question. It has always been in the same phraseology, the Resolution has always been exactly the same Resolution, that a uniform national land tax should be imposed on the capital site value of the whole country. That has been repeated at innumerable conferences, and no Member of the Liberal party has taken such a prominent part in the Debates upon this question at numerous conferences than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean).

Sir D. MACLEAN: I spoke at a Yorkshire conference once and that must be the one to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. My speech contained one sentence. I know perfectly well what it is, and I am prepared to speak about it at any- time, but the right hon. Gentleman ought not to make a perfectly general statement of that kind which is wholly inaccurate.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten, I think; I referred to a conference of the Liberal party. As a matter of fact, I had not in mind any conference in Yorkshire in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. If he will refresh his memory, he will find that he spoke upon this question at a special land conference that was called and also at conferences, where this question has been raised, of the National Liberal Federation. There can be no doubt what the policy of the Liberal party has been. For instance, I find the case is put admirably in the Town and Land Urban Report of the Liberal Land Committee, which reported in 1925. It said:
On account of its peculiar character, the ownership value of land has been viewed in most countries as a fair subject for special taxation.
If the nation gives secure rights of user of its land, it follows that the value of land is a form of wealth to which the nation has a special claim and which therefore is peculiarly appropriate for taxation.
It came to me, therefore, as a complete surprise, after those clear declarations and the justification of the double taxation by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire when they suddenly discovered that there was something immoral in this additional tax. And rather than agree with it, they were prepared to die in the last ditch. They discovered that double taxation was something quite alien to our system of taxation. There is nothing new in it. There are innumerable instances of double taxation in our taxation system. You might more appropriately call it treble taxation, because there is taxation under Schedule A, there is taxation for Estate Duty, and then there will be a special tax on land. There are innumerable other instances. Take motor oars. They are subject, I believe, to taxation four times over. You tax the car, you tax the petrol, you tax it by licence and by a driver's licence, and then, on an imported car, you tax him again. He is taxed about five times over. Lastly, arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's legislation in 1909, take the case of mine-owners, who are taxed three times over. They are taxed on profits, taxed on royalties, and taxed for the Miners Welfare Fund. Therefore there is nothing new in this except this difference, that, to use the argument by which the taxation of land values has been supported by the Liberal party, there is a special case here for special taxation.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall put down the Amendment which had such an untimely end. It was an Amendment which could never have been accepted. It would have wrecked the whole Bill. The only thing that would have been left would have been a few patches of land here and there, and probably, if the Amendment had been incorporated in the Bill, they would have been taken out of taxation by the various Amendments we have been considering. After all, there is something to be said for these Liberal Amendments, and there is something in them. It is, that it is unfair to tax land at the same rate whatever may be its degree of undevelopment or development. I quite agree. That is especially applicable or admissible in the initial stages of any tax.
After the unfortunate experience of those Amendments—if is common property, I am not seeking to shelve or shirk or hide it; it was a perfectly reputable thing to do—we entered into negotiations with the party below the Gangway and a formula was ultimately devised for trying to deal with the point I have mentioned just now, to see whether we can graduate the tax according to the degree of development, so that the person who had spent large sums of money upon the development of a site, and usefully from the point of view of the community, should not be taxed quite so highly as the man who was leaving his land unused and undeveloped. We drafted that formula in the first instance and the discussions ranged—[HON. MEMBERS "Raged?"]—ranged over certain cases and eventually under the capital value of Schedule A, we agreed to a deduction of four times. With that provision we have inserted in this Amendment another condition. The application of a formula pure and simple would have left some developed sites free from taxation altogether, but by this rather ingenious arrangement of a double calculation for purposes of the reduction of land value which we have incorporated in the Amendment, no site however highly developed it may be, will be taxed less than a penny upon the value after the deductions have been made, or in other words less than one-eighth of a penny in the pound of the original site value.
I will explain how this plan works, and will try to do so as simply as I can, I will take three instances—first of all, that of the undeveloped site. The capital value has been assessed for the site at £1,000. It is practically undeveloped. It is assessed under Schedule A at £10 a year. We multiply that by four and get £40 for the deduction. We have to make a second calculation, and the second calculation is seven-eighths of the capital site value. Seven-eighths of £1,000 is £875, but we have to take the lesser of the two deductions, and therefore in that case we should deduct £40 from the £1,000 and the tax would be levied at one penny in the pound upon £960.
I take another case where there is a fair amount of development. The capital site value is £1,000, and Schedule A assessment £100. Four times that gives £400. Therefore, £400 is deducted from
the £1,000. We have to make the second calculation before we come to a decision, namely, the seven-eighths of £1,000, that is £875. £400 is less than £875, and therefore the deduction would be £400, and a man would be taxed at one penny in the pound on £600. The last case is one of a very fully developed site. £1,000 is the site value under Schedule A, assessment £250. Four times that is £1,000. Of course, if £1,000 were deducted, there would be nothing at all. But then the other calculation comes in of seven-eighths, and we deduct £875, and that leaves £125 to be assessed at a penny in the pound. That is equal to one-eighth of a penny upon the whole of the site value. I hope that I have succeeded in making the purpose plain. That is how it works.
Let us see how far the principle of the 40-year-old Liberal programme has been maintained. In all the conversations that I have had with the party below the Gangway on this subject my main concern has been to save the soul of the Liberal party and to bring back to the fold those wanderers who have strayed and erred like lost sheep. Under this new Clause every land unit, except such as are specially exempted, will pay a tax of 1d. in the pound on the value, after the deductions have been made. The rate of the whole value will gradually fall according to the degree of development, and in the most extreme cases it will pay a tax of one-eighth of a penny. Therefore, we get a tax upon every site value, varying according to the degree of development. It will be a special tax, an additional tax, and, if you like, a double tax.
The second object of the Bill is the valuation. That remains intact, untouched. I have said, I believe more than once, that I look upon this proposal of valuation and of taxation as being a step forward in a comprehensive scheme for transferring local rates from improvements to site value. Therefore, the amount of the tax initially does not matter very much. Future Parliaments will settle that. Probably when the time comes for dealing with local rating on that basis a complete revision may be necessary in the scheme of national taxation. I submit that all the principles upon which the Bill is based remain unimpaired. The Liberal party can look the
whole world in the face and say that their 40-year-old programme has now been carried into effect. I said at the beginning that I would briefly explain the new Clause as far as I could, and I hope that I have made it plain. Therefore, I submit it for the approval of the Committee.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having redeemed his promise, not that I have ever had any doubt, because whenever he has made a promise I must say, whatever the way in which he redeems it, he does redeem it, and it is the substance that matters and not the form. He has introduced a new method—new during the 41 years that I have been in Parliament—of making concessions. He has been perfectly original in that respect. I have seen Ministers belonging to the party above the Gangway, to the party of which I am a member, and to the party of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is such a distinguished ornament, and up to the present when a Government or a Minister has made a concession it has always been done graciously, to create the impression that, whether you are getting something or not, at any rate they were giving something away. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted a totally different method. His method is to make it as offensively and as disagreeably as he possibly can, and there is no doubt about his capacity in that direction. I daresay there is a good deal to be said for it. The right hon. Gentleman wants to discourage people from asking for concessions, and he has taken probably, what he thinks is the right way. It is a dangerous way for a Minister. Ministers of longer experience than he have always come to the conclusion that that was not the way.
I remember that when I first came to this House there was a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was very famous for having a pretty rough tongue in private. He was a distinguished member of the party above the Gangway, and a great Minister. I refer to Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. When he came to the House of Commons he adopted quite a different method, and he was a very successful Parliamentarian for that reason. It was part of my duty when I was a young Member rather to obstruct. In those days, people
did that sort of thing. It is an old and an obsolete Parliamentary weapon, but in those days we did it. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach always used to get up and try to persuade us. He would make little concessions and try to give us the impression that we were getting something and that he was making a great concession. The result was that he was a very good man at getting Bills through. This may be a better method, but may I just give a word of advice, as Father of the House, to young Members who are looking forward to becoming Ministers in their time? On the whole, I would advise them to follow the method of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach in public, whatever they may do in private. However, I am not going to deal further with what seems to be the method of reluctance and indignation adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in having to make a concession. The concession has been made, and I am grateful for it.
I will say a few words in regard to what he said about our having departed from the line that we have taken before. I can answer him. I took the trouble to look at the report of the Conference to which he referred, the great Land Conference at which were adopted certain Resolutions on land generally, and at which the land Values resolution was moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). He made a very strong speech upon the subject and the attitude he adopted was pretty well the attitude that we have adopted in the negotiations with the right hon. Gentleman. But it is immaterial what either our attitude or the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman was. We have arrived at an arrangement which, on the whole, I think is good. The right hon. Gentleman has not had the whole of his way. If anyone doubts that, he has only to read his speech. On the other hand, we have not had the whole of our way. That is the very essence of all arrangements. It may be said that we have departed from a certain principle to a certain extent, but the right hon. Gentleman has done the same thing. That is the way legislation is carried through this House, that is the way in which government is carried on in any decent democracy, and especially in a democracy like our own which is the only one that has made a real success
of democratic institutions over a long period.
I understand an Amendment is to be moved later which will challenge the essence of this Amendment, and in that case I propose to reserve what I have to say until we reach that proposal. All I wish to do now is to thank the right hon. Gentleman for redeeming his promise. It is true that he has been more successful as regards the question of draftsmanship, but it must be remembered that he has at his disposal not merely one of the most distinguished member of the Bar but all the resources of the Government, and there is a great difference between his position and the position of an Opposition, although it may have the services of a very eminent lawyer. It is a litle ungenerous, therefore, to criticise an Amendment of an Opposition in those circumstances. In substance, we are agreed. For the moment, I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for having moved this Amendment and redeemed their promise; and I shall await the moving of the subsequent Amendment to defend the principle of this proposal.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I do not think the Committee can part with the Second Reading of this new Clause without taking note of the very extraordinary circumstances in which the Debate takes place. We were led to believe only a fortnight ago that the country had arrived at a critical situation and that the position of the Government was in peril. A compromise has been arrived at, and one would not have paid much attention to the particular terms of the compromise were it not for the fact that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has not only made modifications upon the general arrangement, but has completely given up the principle upon which he said he was going to stand. I am not surprised at the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in regard to the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in defending this Clause. I have rarely seen so much truculence exhibited on the part of a Minister who had made an arrangement with an opponent, but perhaps his truculence was justified by his confidence that no matter what he said or did, no matter what insults he
poured on the Liberal party, it would not goad them into an opposition which would unseat him.
Upon what principle is this new Clause based? It is based upon a theory that in some way or another by taking four times the annual value of a particular tenement of land as assessed under Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts you will arrive at some idea of the extent to which that tenement has been developed. The Liberal principle was that there should be no double taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, as I understand him, that some notice shall be taken of the amount of development taking place on a tenement and that allowance shall be made in the taxation in respect of that development. I must point out to the Committee that the principle which has been adopted for the purpose of giving this allowance is irregular in its method, is uneven in its operation, and has no foundation in reason upon which it can be defended.
Let me take an illustration to show how the principle at once breaks down. It entirely depends upon the value of buildings put up on a particular site as to whether a sufficient allowance is granted or not. If the buildings are expensive, then you may take from the site value a figure which may be high enough to equal the whole of the capital value of the site upon which the buildings are erected. But a site may be completely developed for its purpose and yet have buildings of very small value upon it. Take the case of public works, engineering works or shipbuilding works. The buildings are of small value as a rule compared with the buildings you have on sites in the centre of our great cities. In the case of a shipyard you will have no adequate allowance at all, while you may possibly have an adequate allowance in the case of shops and establishments, which certainly do not deserve more consideration at the present time than our great industrial organisations. So much for the principle.
Let me give the Committee one or two illustrations of sites completely developed in the city of Glasgow to show how this multiplication by four works out. I take a property in St. Vincent Street in the centre of Glasgow. The site value, under the arrangements which were made in previous
legislation, is estimated at £6,774. The assessable rental under Schedule A is £217 5s., which multiplied by four gives you £869 as against a site value of £6,774, in respect of a unit of land in the middle of the city of Glasgow which is completely developed and covered. How can it be said that any proper or adequate allowance is being made in such a case?

Mr. GRAY: Can the right hon. Member give us the present value of the site?

Sir R. HORNE: The site value is £6,774, and the total value of the tenement and buildings is £15,000, and you have a figure of £869 to be deducted from a site value of £6,774, although the land is covered with substantial buildings of four storeys high and is used according to the best method in which it can be used. I take another case in West George Street, in Glasgow, where the site value is £7,300. The assessable value is £330, which multiplied by four gives you £1,320 to be deducted from a site value of £7,300. That, again, is a case where the land is entirely covered by appropriate buildings for its use, and yet you have the great difierence between the amount of the site value and the deduction proposed under the Clause, as well as a great disparity between what is to be deducted in the one case and in the other. I could give the Committee a number of cases of the same kind to show that this principle cannot be worked out upon any fair basis or arrive at any results which do not show amazing discrepancies as between one ease and another, although they may be contiguous properties in the same street. I suggest that we should not give adherence to a principle which operates so fantastically.
I would like to say a word or two about the point of view which the Liberal party took up in this matter. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went up to Scotland and made speeches there. In Edinburgh there was perhaps a more stimulating air than he enjoys in Southern England. He could not have said that his foot was exactly on his native heath, but at least it was on a soil which tends to lead to accuracy and inspiration and also to some element of courage. Upon that occasion the line
that the right hon. Gentleman took was that this was entirely an unjust form of taxation. He pointed out that although a penny was a rather small thing it was a little bit bigger than it appeared, and he added that, being a penny on the capital value, it represented 1s. 8d. of the annual value. Then he referred to the iniquity of a person being obliged to pay 4s. 6d. in Income Tax under Schedule A. and 1s. 8d. in addition. He made reference to an objection which is certainly very strong. He said the proposal would penalise improvements. Yet we have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day that the justification for the modification that he is making is that he must encourage improvements. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs thinks the proposals will penalise improvements, as they indeed will.
Next the right hon. Gentleman went on, progressing still further in the ardour of his arguments, and said, "We will not levy a tax twice over," and that was the principle upon which he finished. He said it would be entirely unjust, and added, "We mean to stand by it, whatever the consequences may be." Then he gave a somewhat pathetic account of the ignominies which the Liberal party had suffered in keeping the Government in power and in consenting to methods of procedure which went very much against the grain, and he said that Liberals were entitled to consideration on that account; accordingly that if the Government insisted upon its attitude the Liberal party would be adamant upon this question.
The right hon. Gentleman came back to London; he came to the more enervating atmosphere of this House, and I have no doubt at all that he was subject to the mellifluous influence of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). No doubt he felt also the difficulties in which many of his colleagues might find themselves if anything were to happen to compel the Government to go to an election. The result was the series of negotiations to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred; and the further result has been what we have seen to-day. So far as the Liberal party is concerned it ended in producing an Amendment which consisted of a jumble of words which no
one could interpret or make sense of. That only exhibited the confusion in which their minds were. Now we have the Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which departs entirely from the principle upon which the Liberal party said they were going to stand, no matter what the consequences might be. It is true that the amount of the tax has been brought down from a penny to one-eighth of a penny, but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, future Parliaments will look after that figure. The figure matters nothing so far as this Amendment is concerned. No doubt necessity, or supposed necessity, will induce some future Parliament to make one-eighth of a penny into a penny or ultimately a shilling. The words in the Clause are, "not less than one-eighth of a penny," which is a very sinister expression, when we consider the principle for which the Liberal party was to stand. We ought to protest against the idea of passing the Second Reading of a Clause constructed upon no principle which can be reasonably explained—a Clause which departs entirely from that sound principle upon which the Liberal party found itself and from which it has now run away.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: After the speech of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), I am not sure whether he is disappointed or not at the Government having proposed this Amendment. I understood that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of the Conservative party were opposed to this tax in any shape or form, and that they were determined, come what may, that not a penny, not a fraction of a penny, should be levied upon site value. Now apparently there is disappointment at the fact that we have shown a way in which at any rate the full penny will not be levied on fully developed sites. We have shown that way, and because it did not occur to the right hon. Gentleman he has expressed his disappointment. As to the way in which this Amendment was proposed, let me remind the Committee that the Liberal party throughout has been in favour of taxation of site values. For 40 years the party has had this matter upon its programme. The Liberal party has also been in favour of a complete
valuation. When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill I welcomed the fact that the Chancellor was proposing once again to tax site values, but I expressed disappointment that the valuation was an incomplete valuation, and that the Chancellor was not following the true line of the true tax valuer. The true tax valuer has always said that there should be no tax upon improvements, and that there should be one tax and one tax only on site values.
This, as I have admitted, is an additional tax so long as Schedule A remains a part of the financial programme of this country. The right thing to have done was to have introduced this as a separate and complete tax, and to have abolished Schedule A altogether. Schedule A is not a true Income Tax. It is levied upon hypothetical valuation of the land as between a hypothetical landlord and a hypothetical tenant. It is levied not only on improvements, but upon the site—the positional value of the ground upon which the buildings and improvements have to be. In that respect and to that extent it is an annual tax upon a particular site. If the site is a fully developed site the tax will amount, roughly, to about 2½d. in the pound of capital value. If the site is undeveloped the tax will amount to only a fraction of a penny. In that way it taxes unfairly the fully developed site and does not tax properly the undeveloped site.
This was meant to be an additional tax, and I said so frankly when speaking in this House. So that it would have meant, left as it was in the Bill, a tax upon the fully developed site of an additional penny, with 2½d. already paid, bringing the amount paid in respect of the land up to 3½d. in the pound on the capital value. On the undeveloped land it would have meant 1d. plus a fraction, so that, again, undeveloped land would escape at the expense of the fully developed land. That being so, I put down an Amendment which aimed at this result—that the land paying tax under Schedule A should have the credit of such payment so that it would not have to pay, over and above that, a full 1d. The result would have been that fully developed land would escape this tax altogether; that under-developed land would have had to pay a portion of it, and that
undeveloped land would have to pay practically the whole of it. That was the purpose of the first Amendment, and I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead should have referred to the way in which the Amendment appeared for the second time on the Order Paper. I think it was rather ungenerous of a member of my own profession to accuse a fellow-member of that profession of faults which were obviously due to a printer's error. What happened was this. The first Amendment was certainly in order and in its right place——

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member may think that, but he must not assert it.

Mr. DAVIES: I apologise. I was not referring to the Amendment which was ruled out of order. I was only referring to the one which wag on the Paper and Was withdrawn. That Amendment which was on the Paper and was withdrawn, was to Clause 20 of the Bill. It was an Amendment which allowed the tax to be assessed in full but having allowed the tax to be assessed in full—and thus followed the desires of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in preserving the tax—it provided that before the tax was actually paid, allowance should be made in respect of such amount as has already been paid by the land under Schedule A. The Chancellor of the Exchequer saw fit to refer to negotiations which took place between Members who sit on these benches and himself and other Members of the Government. There was one phrase which he used in that connection with which I would agree. It was a misuse of a word by the right hon. Gentleman but it was a true representation of what took place. The right hon. Gentleman meant to say that the discussion "ranged" over certain matters, but I think what he actually said was that the discussion "raged," and the discussion was a raging one as far as he was concerned, because he realised that the Amendment which we were putting forward was a just Amendment, and that it had to be met.
There was only one objection to it and that was a real objection, an objection in substance, namely, that it would involve a double valuation. There was the valuation which would have to be made under the Bill to ascertain the site value.
and there was the second valuation which would then have to be made, under that Amendment, to ascertain what the site paid in respect of Schedule A. That would have meant expense and delay and in order to avoid the double valuation it was suggested—and since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has claimed that the form now put forward was invented by his colleagues, I may say that it was the invention of the Solicitor-General himself, who put it forward in order to avoid double valuation, but the express object of both forms was the same—that those who paid fully on the site under Schedule A, should no longer be called on to pay more under this tax, while those who paid less than they ought to pay under Schedule A, namely, the owners of under-developed or undeveloped land, should pay in proportion and in a proper proportion.
The only discussion which took place between us was as to the proper multiple to use. The multiple suggested by them was two; the multiple which we fought for was that which experience has taught every valuer in the land is the proper one in respect of fully developed land, namely, four. [Interruption.] Every valuer of experience will tell hon. Members that usually a building is worth four times the value of the site. [HON. MEMBERS: "Five times!"] Well, five times. If the buildings and improvements are properly valued under Schedule A, the multiple which we have chosen will thus exempt the fully developed land from the further payment of this tax. It is purely arbitrary, I quite agree, but it is the nearest multiple that we can obtain which will not involve any injustice to anybody, and it will, at any rate, avoid the enormous expense to the country of another valuation. But the ultimate object both of this Amendment and of the Amendment which was first put on the Paper, is exactly the same and I hope that experience will show that, in insisting upon this, we have achieved the object which we set out to achieve. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway do not think so, why did they not put down again the Amendment which I had upon the Order Paper in the first instance? They might have put it down to Clause 20 at that time but they did not choose to do so.
With regard to the one-eighth, I agree that that was a concession to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted every fully developed site—not merely the underdeveloped or the undeveloped but the fully developed site also—to bear the same tax and in order to meet him we agreed to what we thought would amount to no more than a nominal tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, a nominal tax where the land is properly valued and properly paying under Schedule A and where it is a fully developed site; and if it is paying more than a nominal tax it means that the owner has already been escaping his due share under Schedule A. But it is no more than an acknowledgment that every site should bear a site value tax and it is only intended as such. It is for that reason that we put down the Amendment which has now been accepted by the Government and has now been proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer although somewhat ungraciously.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) on making a very interesting historical survey of the steps which have led up to the Clause, the Second Reading of which has been moved this evening. My hon. and learned Friend played a very distinguished part in those discussions, and I think the Committee are beholden to him for his statement. I cannot say as much about the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Never was a more graceless, grudging speech made than that which he delivered this evening. I do not know what effect he calculated it would have upon the enemy, but it has certainly frightened some of my hon. Friends here. I do not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any reasonable man, can hope to enlist sympathy for his proposals, if that is the spirit in which they are to be advocated. His speech was, first to last, a suppressio veri and a suggestio falsi. He said that the principle of an additional tax upon land values had been in the Liberal programme for the last 40 years. That is not the case. It never has been the case, and I trust never will be the case, and not only is it not in the policy of the Liberal party, but it has never been in the policy of a single land
taxer. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who is such an authority upon these matters, on the very day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his proposal said:
I want to remind him of this fact—it must have escaped his memory—that it was agreed that if anything was paid by any landowner in respect of his land under Schedule A, he would be relieved to the extent of an equivalent amount if a land tax was imposed upon him.
He made that statement several times in the course of his speech, and he said quite distinctly that it was understood that remissions would be given under Schedule A for the exact amount of this tax. He said indeed that that was the superiority of this tax over the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in 1909, that they were going to remove taxation from industry' and to begin by imposing taxation on laud values instead; so that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down here and says that it has been the principle of land taxation for 40 years to treat the new impost as an additional one, he cannot have been paying attention to the hon. Member for Burslem, nor can he have read the great and luminous works of his master, Mr. Henry George.
I happen to have here what is considered to be the Bible of the land taxers. It is called "Progress and Poverty," by Mr. Henry George. The whole case for land taxation is based upon dissatisfaction with the present system of taxation. If it were not for the evil effects which were thought to ensue from the present system of taxation, none of these proposals of Mr. Henry George would ever have seen the light of day. He attributed every single human misery to taxation upon improvements. He seeks to prove it at considerable length, in a considerable number of works, and with very great eloquence. He says, in effect: "If I build myself a house, and I show industry and energy in building it, the tax collector comes down upon me and penalises me because of my industry. That is all wrong. You must take the tax off improvements and place it upon the site value." He says, in Chapter I of Book IX of this learned work:
To abolish the taxation which, acting and reacting, now hampers every wheel of exchange and presses upon every form of industry, would be like removing an immense weight from a powerful spring.
He says the same sort of thing in varying language throughout the whole work. He says:
To shift the burden of taxation from production and exchange to the value or rent of land would not merely be to give useful new stimulus to the production of wealth; it would be to open new opportunities.
That is the whole theme of the land taxer, and has been so for many years, even before Mr. Henry George. It was the physiocrats at the time of the French Revolution who advocated what they called l'impêt unique, and they based their claim for this new tax from first to last on the evil effect of taxing improvements, which, they said, discouraged enterprise and ingenuity and brought about all the sorrows to which the modem world is heir. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to find a short cut to the Millennium, he cannot do better than take off the Income Tax altogether, and every other tax upon industry, and substitute the proposals of this work. He will then see, as Mr. Henry George tells him he will see, that poverty will be abolished, that everybody will have a happy home, that war will be banished from the thoughts of men, that there will be international peace and good will, and that everybody will enjoy the fruits of their industry in comfort and in happiness.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Has what the hon. Member is now saying about the single tax been the policy of the Liberal party for the last 40 years?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I never received such a thrill in my life since I read "Labour and the Nation." I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem, who has devoted the whole of his working life, I understand, to the advocacy of this proposal—and I think the House is indebted to him for the lucidity with which he has expounded it, for only yesterday he said that the idea of this tax was that it should be a substitute for existing taxation—I asked him where I could obtain, in a compendious form, an explanation of what this tax really involves, and my hon. Friend was kind enough to send me, or to have sent to me, a little book called "Land-Value Policy," by a former Member of this House, Mr. James Dundas White. What does he say, and what does he gay repeatedly, because all land taxers
repeat themselves, just as historians do? He says:
The policy of taxing and rating landed properties on the real value of the lands is bound up with that of untaxing improvements. The two reforms are complementary to one another. The first would make the natural opportunities available for use on fair terms, and the second would promote their development.
There is no doubt about it here. What you put on by way of land tax you must remit by way of Income Tax. I was interrupted just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson), who takes charge of these proceedings during the unfortunate absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am grateful to him for putting me the question. He said, "What about the Liberal party?" In doing that, he was only echoing his master.

Mr. J. HUDSON: No, the interruption was to ask whether what the hon. Member was saying about the single tax had been the policy of the Liberal party for the last 40 years.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly. The 40 years' policy of the Liberal party has been to remit Income Tax and put on a land tax.

Mr. HUDSON: Not to remit it, but to remove it entirely.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Chancellor of the Exchequer may well behave like Pilate and ask "What is truth?" and refuse to wait for an answer, but I ask my hon. Friend to give me an opportunity to answer him. Naturally, as a Liberal, I would not——[HON. MEMBERS: "As a what?"]. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that the privilege of criticising the Government is a monopoly enjoyed by them. I naturally would not rely exclusively on the tomes which I have quoted. I naturally had recourse to the literature of the Liberal publication department, and this is a published pamphlet on the subject which will answer my hon. Friend's question. It is written by that eminent publicist, Mr. Harold Storey, and he says:
This (new tax) is, for the most part, a new method of assessment for purposes of revenue, and not an additional imposition. It would be paid by the people who now pay Income Tax on income derived from the ownership of land, and in their case it would be in substitution for that part of their Income Tax.
He then sets out a table on the next page as follows:
New national land values tax—£52,000,000"—
I think there he was a little optimistic—
deduct present tax paid on income from ownership of land (say) £24,000,000—surplus of £28,000,000.
He deducts the whole of the Schedule A receipts from this tax. This is a pamphlet which is circulated to every Liberal in every constituency. Why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should so far suppress the real facts as to suggest to the small minority of hon. Members in this House who are not acquainted with the intricacies of this subject, that this tax was to be an additional one and that that was the Liberal policy, I cannot understand, any more than I can understand his general revocation of his faith upon every one of the taxes in this Budget, including the Petrol Tax. This, then, is the central principle of Liberal policy, as it has been of land taxation also from its inception—there shall not be a double tax. We have asserted that again and again. I was prepared to accept this new Clause in its present form, because I understood there was some technical reason why a token tax ought to be imposed, but when I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I was informed that that was not the case. The reason for this additional tax, he explained, was in order that the principle of double taxation might be affirmed. In view of what the Chancellor has said, is there one Liberal who adheres to the policy of his party who would go in support of him in the Lobby to-night? Why, the protest against double taxation was made in very, very firm and undoubting language by my leader, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who said that it was a matter of conscience. How then could we support this Clause except by giving life to the old adage that
Conscience does make cowards of us all.

Mr. MORRIS: The powerful speech which the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has delivered puts the case of the Liberal party quite clearly. This Amendment was first of all put on the Paper as a protest against the principle of double taxation. That was the reason why it was placed there at all.
That reason was reaffirmed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at Edinburgh, and reaffirmed there in an unmistakable way. He said we were prepared to stand or fall by it. I, for one, have very great admiration for the tenacity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is a man who knows exactly where he stands, and he gets his way. He has got his way in regard to this Amendment—practically the whole way. He has achieved it by the imposition of one-eighth of a penny tax in order to reaffirm the principle of double taxation. That is not the only thing he has done. I agree with what has been said by another hon. Member in regard to fully developed land, that a comparison is being made between Schedule A and the principle of this tax. The whole fallacy arises from comparing the two taxes, one with the other, by taking Schedule A and setting that off against the tax which is intended to be imposed under the Bill. Actually Schedule A has nothing whatever to do with the tax proposed under this Bill. To set out and subtract, in this form or any other form, the impost under Schedule A from the tax proposed, is like trying to subtract Thursday from the North Pole. It is upon a totally different basis.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Home) pointed out in the perfectly valid illustration he gave, in London and the Provinces, and far more in the Provinces, a great portion of the valuation would fall not to one-eighth of a penny tax, but the full 1d. tax on the greater amount of the assessment. You have the case given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer where the capital value was £1,000. The value under Schedule A was £10. Four times £10 is £40 and that, taken away from the £1,000 is £960. That will fall to be taxed not at one-eighth of a penny, but for the full 1d. tax. The remaining £40 falls under the one-eighth of a penny. It will come in for the whole 1d. tax, so that the concession actually made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is practically valueless. No one who believes that the principle of double taxation is a wrong principle can possible support this proposal. No one who has said that this is a matter of conscience can possibly support it, and for that reason I hope it will not be carried.

Mr. MacLAREN: I apologise to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) for not being present when he opened his speech, but I gathered from the tail end of it that he was having a night of revelry, and, apparently, he had been quoting from what he had discovered in a book 40 years ago written by Henry George. I hope that those other members of the Liberal party will show the same assiduity and enterprise, and will also secure a copy, or I will send them one. I know something of the Liberal party; indeed, I knew a good deal of it in the old days when the fight was on before. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at the outset of the campaign, was extremely anxious, irrespective of double or treble taxation, to have his valuation and tax operating in the Budget of 1909–10. He went out into the country, and I wish his example was copied by some of the Leaders of our Front Bench. He fired the imagination of the people for the land tax. He made the people sing, "God gave the land to the people," but something happened inside the Liberal party itself to make the new tax quite abortive.
I well remember a cave forming inside the Liberal party led by one of the most prominent and influential members. They came to the right hon. Gentleman and told him, "If you dare to go forward with your penny tax on the value of land, there will be disruption in the party." I remember, even as late as 1912, that three by-elections were pending, and the late Lord Oxford was rather wondering what would happen to the fortunes of his party, because by that time the bureaucratic proposals of unemployment insurance had been transplanted from Germany into England, and the stock was going down. There were three by-elections, and what did the Liberal party do then? It is all very well now for the hon. Member for Devon-port to stand, in his youth and sublime arrogance, and repeat——[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Let me tell the Committee what happened. When the stock was falling there were three by-elections, at North-West Norfolk, Holmfirth, and Hanley. They came to the single taxer and the Henry George men, and asked whether we would go forward and fight the by-elections, and if we won, then they would be very much surprised at the
strength of the policy. I went forward into the fight. I took part in three elections, and we won those three elections.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The hon. Member cannot expect the Committee to accept his interpretation of that. I was in the by-elections.

Mr. MacLAREN: It came to such a point that Lord Oxford, who was then Prime Minister, became afraid of the intimidating influences of the caucus in his party, and he stood at that Box and told the country that there were no Henry George men in the Cabinet. I am saying this to remind the Liberal party that their leader in those days was more aggressive in handling the policy of Henry George than some of his followers are here to-night. The Liberal party gradually sank into the position in which it finds itself to-day from the moment that they were false to the principles with which they had fired the people in 1909–10. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) and a few others have been looming before the country as the men who have been drafting this Clause because of a remark I dropped about Schedule A when I was speaking in the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Arrogance!"] I have nothing to swank about, because I want to put the Committee right about this. The proposition that this Amendment was built on anything I said is an entirely false conception. What I wanted the Committee to understand when I was speaking was that if a tax was levied on the value of the land and was in full operation, regard would have to be had for what was happening under Schedule A.
The Liberal party, swift and keen to come into the picture somehow, although the leader of the party had told the Chancellor to make no concessions, and warned him against making any exemptions, ran upstairs and had a party meeting. They drafted their Amendment no less than five times. Finally, the great Edinburgh speech was made because the leader of the party was wholly unconscious of the anxiety running through his own party in London. They were going to hold fast to the principle of no double taxation. I put this to the Liberal Members of the House. For years the Liberal party have advocated the
local rating of land values. Since 1906, when Campbell Bannerman was determined to lead the party in that policy, the party stood for the rating of land values. I ask any hon. Gentleman on the Liberal benches if he can show me any document in which it is stated that, if the rating of land values were introduced, any regard would be had to Schedule A.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I read the passage from the Liberal pamphlet.

Mr. MacLAREN: The hon. Gentleman was speaking about taxation. I am speaking about local rating.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This passage that I have read says exactly the same thing, that
"the tax, like the rate, is not an additional burden."

Mr. MacLAREN: When was that pamphlet published?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In 1927.

Mr. MacLAREN: Since 1906—and I know the literature of the Liberal party on this question upside down—— [Laughter.] I give hon. Members the pleasure of that, because it will be the best joke they will have to-night. I know the literature on this matter from A to Z, and at no point was there ever in the literature, nor in the published speeches made by the leaders of the Liberal party to the effect that if the rating of land values was in full swing any regard would ever be had to Schedule A. Indeed, it would have been nothing short of a farce if any responsible statesman in this House had proposed some new system of rating and land values and had adjusted local rating in relation to something in national taxation. This talk of double taxation is a new idea. Taxes fall upon consumable subjects, and the average man is taxed on his beer and on his tobacco, and he is taxed 10 or perhaps 20 times on the things that he consumes. Men pay Super-tax and Income Tax and there are any number of instances of more taxes than one falling on the same subject. Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, thinking back on the old days when he had the mass of the people behind him, as he often must think, were at this Box and endeavouring to get through
the valuation of the land of this country. Does any Liberal suggest that in the transitional period between the time that the valuation was being made and when the first tax upon the valuation was achieved, there would not be a large element of double taxation? Of course there would be, and all this talk about double taxation is so much political window-dressing.
I was surprised to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport, because if there ever were a real democrat on the Liberal benches it is he, and I am astonished that he should have taken up such a reactionary attitude. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to give way on this question, he has won a greater victory- than many men and women in the country appreciate, because he has had to stand almost single-handed against intrigue and all sorts of forces trying to drag him down. He stands here to-night victorious on the great principle that the valuation of the land will remain intact and it will not go down to history that the Liberal party aided him in this most gallant fight. When I joined the Labour party I thought there would be no vested interests in the party. I thought at one time that inside the Liberal party there would be no vested interests, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs knows that when he was endeavouring to press this matter as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was intimidated by reactionary forces inside the Liberal party itself. Therefore, although I did not hear all the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport, I suggest to him that if he goes back into the history of his own party it will bring him round to a saner idea of what the politics of this principle really mean, and I hope that he will live long enough to join in the plaudits of the people who will look back upon this proposition, the proposition of making the value of this land known to the people of this country, untaxing the products of labour and bringing to bear the hammer of taxation upon this historic anomaly of land monopoly.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in line 1, after the word "tax," to insert the words "and for the better avoidance of double taxation."
This Amendment must be read in conjunction with the Amendment at the foot of the page—In line 2, leave out the word "either"—and the Amendment at the head of the following page—In line 4, to leave out from the word "purposes" to the end of the Sub-section. The effect of the three Amendments taken together would be to leave out paragraph (b) in the first Sub-section of the Chancellor's Clause. The fact that we have allowed the Clause to pass its Second Reading without challenge does not mean that we have in any way abated our hostility to the proposals which the Clause proceeds to modify. Our opposition to the proposals as a whole is the same as it has been throughout, and when the time comes to move that the Clause be added to the Bill we shall go into the Lobby against it; but we have been anxious for an opportunity of moving this Amendment, and did not desire to take up time with unnecessary Divisions. There is another point we should like to draw attention to, and may have the opportunity of doing so before the Guillotine falls. I refer to the multiplier in paragraph (a) of this same Sub-section. Although this Amendment has no reference to that multiplier I do not wish it to be supposed that in our opinion four times the annual value is the proper figure to take.
But leaving that aside for the moment, I come to the real purpose of the Amendment I have moved. Its purpose is to go as far as possible in the direction of putting a stop to double taxation. Although we Strongly opposed the proposals for land taxation from the first moment when we were aware of their nature, I think I am right in saying that it was not our party which laid particular emphasis upon the question of double taxation. If we have a characteristic as a party it is, I think, that we do not so much regard theory as practice, and that
we approach the consideration of any new proposal from the realist's point of view and not necessarily from the point of view of whether it conflicts or accords with some theory. The characteristic of the Liberal party is that they are particularly concerned with theory, and it is an illustration of that point of view that they fixed at once—well, not at once perhaps; I am going too fast. Their first reaction was that there was nothing wrong with the proposals, except that they did not go far enough, but after they had had time to take in the contents of letters they received from their constituents they had recourse to theory, and they pitched upon the question of double taxation. They stated that the principle of double taxation was one to which they could never give their adherence, that the principle of single taxation was violated by these proposals, and that they themselves were prepared to fight for that principle at all costs. They followed that up by putting down an Amendment the purpose of which was to carry into effect the principle to which they had declared their adherence. Their Amendment provided that the Land Tax should be assessed, but that after it Shad been assessed the tax payable under Schedule A should be deducted from the amount of the Land Tax. Therefore if it were equal to or greater than the amount of the assessment to the Land Tax, there would be nothing to pay at all.
Whatever may be thought of that Amendment, at any rate it did carry out the principle. If I may so describe it, it was an honest Amendment, one about which there was no mistake. It definitely secured the principle that there should not be double taxation. Therefore, I am not surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been astonished at the extraordinary tergiversations of the Liberal party, although I think his astonishment was directed to their earlier reversal of policy rather than to the one which took place after they had had conversations with him. In my opinion, the first Amendment of the Liberal party represented the only honest course for a party to take which had laid down its adherence to the principle of single taxation. They have now—or some of them have—apparently given in to a new proposal which is no longer in accordance
with the principle they had themselves laid down, which, in fact, directly contravenes that principle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opening speech on this subject this evening, stated that double taxation was nothing new. He gave instances from existing taxation to show that more than one tax was placed upon a particular article or upon a particular form of income. That is true, and; yet I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's analogies were false analogies, and that there is a definite and separable principle which may be extracted from the case of the Land Tax and tax under Schedule A. What is the Income Tax? The Income Tax, whether under Schedule A or another Schedule, is, in effect, the measure of a man's ability to contribute towards the expenditure of the country. Having assessed ability, and put upon it a tax which carries out and puts into Operation that ability to pay, you have no right to double that tax.
Therefore, I cannot agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that because there are various taxes for instance, placed upon the man who uses a motor car, that is a fair analogy with the double tax involved in this tax. In their struggles to try and make it consistent with what they said a little while ago, I gather that the Liberal party are going to argue, although in fact they have given away the principle, that the transgression is only a small one. I do not think that I ever heard a more merciless exposure of the Liberal party than that to which they were subjected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that this was a new way of making concessions, because they have had their faces fairly rubbed in the mud. I do not see how they can pretend for a moment that they have saved the principle of their original Amendment. What is now proposed is rather an ingenious arrangement which has entrapped the Members of the Liberal party by providing, in the Chancellor's words, that "there will be a tax on every site value, or to put it in another way, that we still get the double tax." No wonder the official organ of the party opposite said:
On every point of principle, the Liberals have made a complete climb down. Under it (the new Clause) every unit of land (except
exempted land belonging to hospitals, etc.) will bear a tax graded according to the degree of development. So the Liberals have swallowed all they have said about double taxation.
How is this new principle going to work? Is it really only a small departure from the principle of double taxation which is involved by the proposal on the Amendment Paper? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) gave us an illustration as to how the principle would work in Glasgow. I will give some instances nearer home. Here are particulars of an actual case of a block of offices and residential flats in London in a locality principally of a shopping character. It is a case where the property is let on a lease with 45 years unexpired. In this case the annual value for Income Tax is £1,360 and the estimated site value is £34,460. If you multiply the annual value by four and deduct it from the site value, you get £29,020. Therefore, the tax at 1d. in the £ would be £120 under the proposal which is before us. The amount under the original Bill would be £143 11s. So that the whole difference in this case is a difference of £22 a year, or a saving of less than one-sixth of the tax, which is equivalent to an Income Tax of 6s. 3d. in the £. Here is another case. In a shopping centre in London, the estimated site value of the land was £62,500, and the annual value for Income Tax purposes was £1,538. Multiplying that by four, and deducting it from the site value, the balance would be £56,410. Under the original Bill, the tax would be £260, and under these new proposals £235, a difference of only £25.
10.0 p.m.
Take another case of a somewhat different character. This is the case of a house and garage in which the original tax is £61, and under these proposals it will be £53, or a difference of £8 a year. I could multiply these cases over and over again, but in every case the practical and net result is that not only has the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I said on a previous occasion, got away with the principle at the expense of the cash, but he has got the cash, too. The unfortunate taxpayer who thinks that he is going to avoid double taxation by any proposal of this kind, will certainly find
himself utterly deceived when he comes to work out the actual figures.
I conclude by saying that I think this Amendment is really the acid test of the sincerity of the Liberal party in their determination to stand by the words which their leader used at Edinburgh, when he said that he would never consent to tax the same property twice, and that that was a principle for which he was going to fight at all costs. Even if this Amendment be carried, the Clause will be still deserving of our condemnation, and, at any rate, I hope we shall have the satisfaction of seeing the Liberal party stand to their guns for once.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) said that one of the characteristics of his party was to be practical, but, in my opinion, he seems to have given us a particularly bad example. What practical purpose can be served by inserting these words it is impossible to conceive. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman wishes that words which are put into this Clause by way of a compromise between two different points of view should be interpreted as showing only one point of view, and that is not a practical suggestion. I will deal with the practical aspect of this matter and the effect it will have in such eases as were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston. Take the case of the shipping centre with a site value assessed at £62,500 by whom I know not, and the Schedule A assessment by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue at £1,538. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that 5 percent. on the site value alone comes to over £3,000; and does he consider that the site is fully developed when the receipts for rent for the site, plus the building, come to 2½ percent. on the value of the site, without any building at all? The right hon. Gentleman's idea of a full return on site and building is very different from that of most surveyors and of most people accustomed to dealing with land.
of course, if one gives such examples as that, and such examples as were given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Horne), which are perfectly ridiculous examples, if I may say so with respect, one can reduce this Clause to what appears to be a farce; but if, on the other hand, one takes
examples which actually occur in practice as regards fully developed sites, one will find that the result is extraordinarily different. It is quite well known among people familiar with values that, in a case where you have the value of the building less than the value of the site, you must have a very grossly undeveloped site.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have other figures as regards other sites, but I am quite sure of this fact, that, in any case where a building and a site together are let for less than 5 per cent. on the value of the site alone, either the site is valued wrongly or the building and site together are valued wrongly.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the examples given by my right hon. Friend of double taxation were not true analogies, but I would point out that one of the examples which my right hon. Friend gave was the Mineral Eights Duty, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman ever dealt with that analogy, which, it would seem, is a perfectly true analogy. It is upon a subject matter, the mineral, the profits from which are taxed under the Income Tax Acts, and the Mineral Eights Duty is an extra tax upon this particular source of income. It does seem that that is a true analogy, but the question whether what is incorporated in the Clause before the Committee is double taxation or not would seem to be for the moment an academic question. [Interruption.] I am not suggesting that our view may not be one thing and the view of other persons another thing. The whole point of the Clause, and it was expressed quite clearly by my right hon. Friend, is that this Clause is a compromise. It is an arrangement which has been come to—[Interruption.]—and as to which neither we nor right hon. and hon. Gentleman below the Gangway need be in the least ashamed; it only shows that we are both endowed with common sense. [Interruption.] We are practical people, as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe his party is. As the result of the compromise, an arrangement has been brought out—[Interruption.]—which does carry out two things. It carries out the principle of valuing all the units, and the principle of having some tax upon every unit; and it also carries out the principle of diminishing the effective amount of the tax in accordance with the amount of development which has
taken place on the site. In that sense I find it difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman is intending to vote against it. Presumably it is because he desires the full tax of 1d. to be effective on the whole of the land value, whether there is development or not. That is the only ground upon which he could vote against this Clause.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have only one or two words to say in further reply to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). His case has been disposed of so effectively by the Solicitor-General that it is not necessary for me to add anything more. The right hon. Gentleman said that our first Amendment was an honest one. In his view, every compromise must necessarily be dishonest. You may state a principle, and you may put it in the form of an Amendment which embodies that principle, but any departure from that in the direction of an opponent with whom you want to effect an arrangement upon that particular question must necessarily be dishonest from his point of view. What about the right hon. Gentleman himself? From his point of view, there is no more dishonest man in politics to-day. For weeks and months he has been fighting against a principle which he opposed. The gyrations, the meanderings, the contortions of the right hon. Gentleman were simply the derision and contempt of everybody in politics. [Interruption.] I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and hon. Members must listen to me.
The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been forced to make an arrangement. On the face of their correspondence, it was something that neither of them agreed to in principle, but it was necessary for some purpose of their own politically, which they regarded as a more important matter, to enter into this arrangement. There is no man in this House—[Interruption]—there is no man in this House, I repeat, who has less right, in the face of his record of the last 12 months, to taunt anybody.
May I point out—it has already been pointed out by the Solicitor-General—that the right hon. Gentleman himself
does not seem to understand the very principle which he is here to advocate—[Interruption.] I will show that that is so. He gives two cases. Obviously, those are not cases of double taxation under this Amendment. Both of the cases he gave were cases, obviously, of under-taxation. The second case was referred to by the Solicitor-General when he referred to a site value of £62,000, 5 percent, of which is £3,100, and a Schedule A figure of only £1,500. That is without any building at all. Obviously, it is an undeveloped site; obviously, it is under-taxed; that particular unit is not contributing to the taxation of the country according to its value. What has that to do with double taxation? The other case he gave, not quite as striking, but striking enough, was a site of £34,460. Schedule A is only £1,360. Five percent. on the site alone would have been £1,700, without a penny-piece upon the building. Obviously that unit ought to be taxed far more than at present. This Amendment will cover both those cases because they are undeveloped. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the case he is trying to make. This is not a case of double taxation. It is obviously, on the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman himself, a case of under-taxation which will be remedied by this Amendment.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I can actually give the right hon. Gentleman a case where there is double taxation. I agree with what he said just now. I will not interrupt him now if he will allow me a few minutes at the end.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I was justified in sitting down, apart altogether from being anxious to show every courtesy to the hon. Gentleman. He himself admits that these are not cases of double taxation. The right hon. Gentleman has been badly briefed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to have supplied him with better figures. As a matter of fact, the whole thing has been grossly exaggerated. I was very much struck by a speech we heard about the Peabody Buildings and the Guinness Buildings and the Trust. They were to pay £20,000 a year. Obviously those are fully developed. That means that the sites alone of all these buildings are worth £38,000,000. It is preposterous. It shows the kind of exaggeration that has been
used in the country where you cannot check the figures, while, if they are used here, there is someone who is ready to put them right. The same thing applies to other cases. Instead of giving these very big cases, which affect a few rich corporations as a rule, let us take a case which affects a multitude of people. Let us take the case of a site of the value of £1,000 and a shop built on it worth another £4,000. That is £5,000. Four times Schedule A will be roughly £1,000. That would be a fully developed site. What will happen there? Under the Bill as originally drawn there would have been a charge of £4 3s. 4d. That has been exaggerated, to begin with. Under this Amendment there will be a charge of 10s. 5d.
You may say that to that extent we have given away the principle. Does anyone mean to say to me that, in the conflict of politics, in the conflict of the House of Commons, it is an illegitimate thing, an outrage on the conscience, that, when you are fighting for the full establishment of a principle, you should be prepared to compromise after seven-eighths of the demand is conceded? When you come to an under-developed site where the site is so valuable and where the building is obviously not adequate to the site—that is the sort of case that has been given by the right hon. Gentleman—there, of course, the tax will be higher, but, when you come to a fully developed site, that is the position that will occur. There are lawyers on both sides of the House. Many a time they appear in the courts and fight for something which they regard as complete justice for their client. Does it mean that when they settle an action for a variety of reasons—[Interruption.] I have never concealed from the House or the country why I was anxious to have a settlement—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are jeering as if it was something I was revealing for the first time. I was anxious, as I said here a week ago, for a settlement for reasons which I regard as paramount. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are equally anxious that there shall be no settlement for exactly the same reasons. Can anyone in his senses imagine that their indignation is about the charging of 10s. 5d.? They want to sit on the benches opposite. They thought that their opportunity had
come at last. There was all this indignation and this talk about conscience as if nothing had anything to do with this particular Amendment! ulterior motives are prompting hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen, and they have no right to complain—Interruption. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have no right to criticise if those who regard the whole field of politics, who regard the great ultimate issues which are hanging upon the traditions of this House, and those who are in responsible positions, weigh and balance the whole thing, just as the right hon. Gentleman weighed and balanced the whole thing when he compromised with Lord Beaverbrook, and when he sold his principles.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose——[Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would assist the conduct of the proceedings if hon. Members would retrain from making interruptions.

M. CHAMBERLAIN: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to quote any speech or any words of mine showing any principles that I compromised or departed from in any shape or form.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he says that he did not compromise any principle when he made that arrangement, why did he not say so before, and not wait for six months? [Interruption.] He was either fighting for principle when he was opposing Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere, or he was abandoning principle when he made the arrangement. He can choose the dilemma. He made an arrangement when there was a division of opinion inside his own party, in order to reconcile two conflicting parties, two conflicting sections, two conflicting principles. Having done that in his own party, he has no right to impute motives to anyone else. [Interruption.] I promised the hon. Member on the back bench that I would give him a couple of minutes, although I have a few more words to say. I say, without any hesitation, that this is an arrangement which, in my judgment, is a fair one. It is a reconciling of the principle which the right hon. Gentleman contends for, that there should be a universal tax, with the principle which we would have preferred,
that it should have been upon the basis of development. So far, in relation to double taxation, we would point out that so far as fully developed property is concerned it is reduced to a minimum. I say that that is a perfectly fair arrangement.

Sir W. BRASS rose——[Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to speak.

Sir W. BRASS: The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) told us that land was not fully developed if the Schedule A assessment of the building on it could not produce when multiplied by four the equivalent of the site value. I will give him one example from the City of London. The assessment under Schedule A is £93,000. Four times £23,000 is £92,000 The ground rent is £9,319 a year which at 20 years' purchase, or five percent., the figure which

the right hon Gentleman took, gives £186,380. The site value of that land on the amount of four times Schedule A assessment is £92,588 so that the full one penny will have to be paid on £93,792. In the City of London you cannot erect a building high enough, under the Building Acts, to be able to produce a sufficient Schedule A assessment to equal a site value like that.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his ideas on double taxation are based on his statement that the figures that I gave would have worked out at £48,000,000?

It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 4th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided; Ayes, 247; Noes, 289.

Division No. 351.]
AYES.
[10.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel
Castle Stewart, Earl Of
Fielden, E. B.


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Albery, Irving James
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Ford, Sir P. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Forestier-Walker, Sir I.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox, Univ.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Aske, Sir Robert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Chapman, Sir S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Astor, Viscountess
Christle, J. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gower, Sir Robert


Atkinson, C.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Colman, N. C. D.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Colville, Major D. J.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Beaumont, M. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Cowan, D. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Dcuglas H.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hammersley, S. S.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hartington, Marquess of


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Boyce, Leslie
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Haslam, Henry C.


Bracken, B.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hills, Major Ht. Hon. John Waller


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dixey, A. C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Buchan, John
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Howard-Bury. Colonel C. K.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Edmondson, Major, A. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hurd, Percy A.


Butler, R. A.
England, Colonel A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Everard, W. Lindsay
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Campbell, E. T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Iveagh, Countess of


Carver, Major W. H.
Ferguson, Sir John
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Somerville, A. A, (Windsor)


Knox, Sir Alfred
O'Neill, Sir H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Lambert, Rt. Han. George (S. Molton)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.
Penny, Sir George
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Llewollin, Major J. S.
Pybus, Percy John
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ramsbotham, H.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Thompson, Luke


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Lymington, Viscount
Remer, John R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Train, J.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Tryon, Rt- Hon. George Clement


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Robinson, Sir T, (Lanes, Stretford)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wallace, Capt, D. E. (Hornsey)


Margesson, Captain H. D
Ross, Ronald D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Marjoribanks, Edward
Rothschilo, J. de
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Meller, H. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, Sydney R.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Millar, J. D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Winterten, Rt. Hon. Earl


Monsell, Eyres, Com, Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Withers, Sir John James


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Savery, S. S.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Womersley, W. J.


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Skelton, A. N.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Muirhead, A. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith, R. W. Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Smithers, Waldron
Colonel Sit A. Lambert Ward.


O'Connor, T. J.
Somerset, Thomas



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Church, Major A. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff-, Cannock)
Clarke, J. S.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Groves, Thomas E.


Alpass, J. H.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grundy, Thomas W.


Ammon, Charles George
Cove, William G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Angell, Sir Norman
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Arnott, John
Daggar, George
Hall, Capt. W. p. (Portsmouth, C.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dallas, George
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Ayles, Walter
Dalton, Hugh
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Harbord, A.


Barnes, Alfred John
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)


Barr, James
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)


Batey, Joseph
Day, Harry
Harris, Percy A.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Devlin, Joseph
Haycock, A. W.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hayday, Arthur


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Duncan, Charles
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Benson, G.
Ede, James Chuter
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Edge, Sir William
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Birkett, W. Norman
Edmunds, J. E.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Blindell, James
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Herriotts, J.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Elmley, Viscount
Hicks, Ernest George


Bowen, J. W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Foot, Isaac
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Freeman, Peter
Hoffman, P. C.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hollins, A.


Bromfield, William
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Hopkin, Daniel


Bromley, J.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Brooke, W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Brothers, M.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Gibbins, Joseph
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Buchanan, G.
Gill, T. H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)


Burgess, F. G.
Glassey, A. E.
Jones, Rt. Hon Left (Camborne)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Gossling, A. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cameron, A. G.
Gould, F.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Cape, Thomas
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Carter, W, (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Charleton, H. C.
Gray, M liner
Kelly, W. T.


Chater, Daniel
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas




Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Kinley, J.
Mort, D. L.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Kirkwood, D.
Muff, G.
Sinkinson, George


Knight, Holford
Muggeridge, H. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Lang, Gordon
Murnin, Hugh
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Nathan, Major H. L.
Smith, Lees-. Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Tom (Pontetract)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lawrence, Susan
Oldfield, J. R.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sorensen, R.


Lawson, John James
Owen, Major G, (Carnarvon)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Palin, John Henry
Stephen, Campbell


Leach, W.
Paling, Wilfrid
Strauss, G. R.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Palmer, E. T.
Sullivan, J.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sutton, J. E.


Lees, J.
Perry, S. F.
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)


Leonard, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lindley, Fred W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Thurtle, Ernest


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Pole, Major D. G.
Tillett, Ben


Logan, David Gilbert
Potts, John S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Longbottom, A. W.
Price, M. P.
Toole, Joseph


Longden, F.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Tout, W. J.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Townend, A. E.


Lunn, William
Rathbone, Eleanor
Vaughan, David


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Raynes, W. R.
Viant, S. P.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Richards, R.
Walkden, A. G.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walker, J.


McElwee, A.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wallace, H. W.


McEntee, V. L.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Watkins, F. C.


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Ritson, J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


McKinlay, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


MacLaren, Andrew
Romeril, H. G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Rowson, Guy
Welsh, James (Paisley)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


McShane, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
West, F. R.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Westwood, Joseph


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
White, H. G.


Manning, E. L.
Sanders, W. S.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Mansfield, W.
Sandham, E.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


March, S.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Marcus, M
Scott, James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Markham, S. F.
Scurr, John
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Marley, J.
Sexton, Sir James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Marshall, Fred
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mathers, George
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Matters, L. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Maxton, James
Sherwood, G. H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Messer, Fred
Shield, George William
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Mills, J. E.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wise, E. F.


Milner, Major J.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Montague, Frederick
Shinwell, E.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Morley, Ralph
Simmons, C. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Clause and on an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.

Question put. "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 237.

Division No. 352.]
AYES.
[10.41 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Brockway, A. Fenner


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Bromfield, William


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Bromley, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brooke, W.


Alpass, J. H.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brothers, M.


Amman, Charles George
Benson, G.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)


Angell, Sir Norman
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Arnott, John
Birkett, W. Norman
Buchanan, G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Blindell, James
Burgess, F. G.


Ayles, Waiter
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Caine, Hall-, Derwent


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bowen, J. W.
Cameron, A. G.


Barnes, Alfred John
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cape, Thomas


Barr, James
Broad, Francis Alfred
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Charleton, H. C.
Kinley, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Chater, Daniel
Kirkwood, D.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Church, Major A. G
Knight, Holford
Riley, F. F. (Stocktor-on-Tees)


Clarke, J. S.
Lang, Gordon
Ritson, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Han. George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Romeril, H. G.


Cocks, Frederick scymour
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cove, William G.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Rowson, Guy


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawrence, Susan
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Daggar, George
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dallas, George
Lawson, John James
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Leach, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sandham, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sawyer, G. F.


Day, Harry
Lees, J.
Scott James


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leonard, W.
Scurr, John


Devlin, Joseph
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sexton, Sir James


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lindley, Fred W.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Duncan, Charles
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ede, James Chuter
Logan, David Gilbert
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edge, Sir William
Longbottom, A. W.
Sharwood, G. H.


Edmunds, J. E.
Longden, F.
Shield, George William


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Elmley, Viscount
Lunn, William
Shillaker, J. F.


Foot, Isaac
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shinwell, E.


Freeman, Peter
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. R. (Seaham)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Simmons, C. J.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McElwee, A.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
McEntee, V. L.
Sinkinson, George


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sitch, Charles H.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Glassey, A. E.
MacNelli-Weir, L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sorensen, R.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Manning, E. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Gray, Milner
Mansfield, W.
Strauss, G. R.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
March, S.
Sullivan, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marcus, M.
Sutton, J. E.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Markham, S. F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marley, J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Groves, Thomas E.
Marshall, Fred
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mathers, George
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Matters, L. W.
Tillett, Ben


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, James
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Messer, Fred
Toole, Joseph


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mills, J. E.
Tout, W. J.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Milner, Major J.
Townend, A. E.


Harbord, A.
Montague, Frederick
Vaughan, David


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Viant, S. P.


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Money, Ralph
Walkden, A. G.


Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walker, J.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.
Wallace, H. W.


Haycock, A. W.
Muff, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Hayday, Arthur
Muggeridge, H. T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Murnin, Hugh
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Herriotts, J.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hicks, Ernest George
Oldfield, J. R.
West, F. R.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Westwood, Joseph


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
White, H. G.


Hoffman, P. C.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hollins, A.
Paling, Wilfrid
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hopkin, Daniel
Palmer, E. T.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Perry, S. F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilson, J, (Oldham)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, M. P.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wise, E. F.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Kelly, W. T.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Raynes, W. R.



Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richards, R.
TELLERS FOB THE AYES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charlas
England, Colonel A.
Muirhead, A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C, (Cambridge)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Ferguson, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fermoy, Lord
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fielden, E. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Aske, Sir Robert
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Viscountess
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atkinson, C.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Pybus, Percy John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Sir Robert
Reid, David D, (County Down)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Remer, John R.


Beaumont, M. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Bevan, s. J. (Holborn)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ross, Ronald D.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boyce, Leslie
Hall, lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Salmon, Major I.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hammersley, S. S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Savery, S. S.


Buchan, John
Haslam, Henry C.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Sinclair, Cot- T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Skelton, A. N.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smithers, Waldron


Campbell, E. T.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Somerset, Thomas


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hudson, Capt. A. u. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cautlsy, Sir Henry S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. B.(Prtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cazalet, captain Victor A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Chapman, Sir S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Christie, J. A.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thompson, Luke


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colman, N. C. D.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Train, J.


Cooper, A. Duff
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cranborne, Viscount
Lymington, Viscount
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crichton-stuart, Lord C.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wayland, Sir William A


Cunilffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Melier, R. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Womersley, W. J.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Dixey, A. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)



Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

First Schedule (Incumbrances from which Land is not. deemed to be free for purposes of Valuation), agreed to.

Orders of the Day — STCOND SCHEDULE.—(Requirements in connection with Production of Instruments of Transfer.)

Question put, "That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 236.

Division No. 353.]
AYES.
[10.52 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Glassey, A. E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gossling, A. G.
MacDonald, Ht. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Gould, F.
MacDonald, Malcoim (Bassetlaw)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McElwee, A.


Alpass, J. H.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McEntee, V. L.


Ammon, Charles George
Gray, Milner
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Angell, Sir Norman
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McKinlay, A.


Arnott, John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacLaren, Andrew


Aske, Sir Robert
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Ayles, Walter
Groves, Thomas E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Grundy, Thomas W.
McShane, John James


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Barr, James
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Manning, E. L.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mansfield, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Marcus, M.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Harbord, A.
Markham, S. F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Marley, J.


Benton, G.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Marshall, Fred


Bavan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Percy A.
Mathers, George


Birkett, W. Norman
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Matters, L. W.


Blindell, James
Haycock, A. W.
Maxton, James


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hayday, Arthur
Messer, Fred


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Millar, J. D.


Bawerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mills, J. E.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Milner, Major J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Montague, Frederick


Bromfield, William
Herriotts, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bromley, J.
Hicks, Ernest George
Morley, Ralph


Brooke, W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Brother, M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Hoffman, P. C.
Mort, D. L.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Holline, A.
Muff, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J, (South Ayrshire)
Hopkin, Daniel
Muggerodge, H. T.


Buchanan, G.
Hors-Belisha, Leslie
Murnin, Hugh


Burgess, F. G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Hunter, Dr. Joseth
Naytor, T. E.


Cameron, A. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Oldfield, J. R.


Chater, Daniel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Church, Major A. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Clarke, J. S.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborno)
Palin, John Henry


Cluse, W. S.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Paling, Wilfrid


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Palmer, E. T.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cove, William G.
Kelly, W. T.
Perry, S. F.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Daggar, George
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. JOSEPH M.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Dallas, George
Kinley, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Pole, Major D. G.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lang, Gordon
Potts, John s.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhuughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. Gaorge
Pries, M. p.


Day, Harry
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Devlin, Joseph
Law, A. (Rotundata)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawrence, Susan
Raynes, W. R.


Duncan, Charles
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Richards, R.


Ede, James Chuter
Lawson, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Leach, W.
Riley, F. P. (Stocttton-on-Tast)


Elmley, viscount
Lee, Frank (Darby, N. E.)
Ritson, J


Evane, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Foot, Isaac
Less, J.
Rameril, H. G.


Freeman, Peter
Leonard, W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rothschild, J. de


Gardner, J. p. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lindley, Fred W.
Rowson, Guy


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Longbottom, A. W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Gibbins, Joseph
Longden, F.
Samuel, H. Watter (Swansea, West)


Gibson, H. M. (Lams, Mossley)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sanders, W. S.


Gill, T. H.
Lunn, William
Sandham, E.


Sawyer, G. F.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Scott James
Stephen, Campbell
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Scurr, John
Strauss, G. R.
West, F. R.


Sexton, Sir James
Sullivan, J.
Westwood, Joseph


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Sutton, J. E.
White, H. G.


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Sherwood, G. H.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Shield, George William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thurtle, Ernett
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Shillaker, J. F.
Tillett, Ben
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Shinwell, E.
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanally)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Toole, Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Simmons, C. J.
Tout, W. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sinkinson, George
Vaughan, David
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sitch, Charles H.
Viant, S. P.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Laughb'gh)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Walkden, A. G.
Wise, E. F.


Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B.(Keighley)
Walker, J.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract).
Wallace, H. W.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watkins, F. C.



Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


Sorensen, R.
Wellock, Wilfred



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colville, Major D. J.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cooper, A. Duff
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Albery, Irving James
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hurd, Percy A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Attar, Viscountess
Dalkeith, Earl of
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Atholl, Duchess of
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Iveagh, Countess of


Atkinson, C.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Davies, Ma|. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Dawson Sir Philip
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Balniel, Lord
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dixey, A. C.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Beaumont, M. W.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Beilairs, Commander Cariyon
Eden, Captain Anthony
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
England, Colonel A.
Lleweilln, Major J. J.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Ferguson, Sir John
Lymington, Viscount


Boyce, Leslie
Fermoy, Lord
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Bracken, B.
Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fison, F. G. Claverlng
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Macquisten, F. A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gaibraith, J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Marjorlbanks, Edward


Buchan, John
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meiler, R. J.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Butler, R. A.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Campbell, E. T.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Carver, Major W. H.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Muirhead, A. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptnf'ld)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
O'Connor, T. J.


Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Omen, Sir Charles William C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hammersley, S. S.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Christie, J. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Penny, Sir George


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Haslam, Henry C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Colman, N. C. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton




Pybus, Percy John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ramsbotham, H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Turton, Robert Hush


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Remer, John R.
Smithers, Waldron
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Rontoul, Sir Gervais S.
Somerset, Thomas
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Robinson, Sir T. (Lance, Stretford)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, Sydney R.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennall
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ross, Ronald D.
Stanley, Hon. O, (Westmorland)
Wilson, 6. H. A, (Cambridge U.)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Salmon, Major I
Stuart, Hon. J, (Moray and Nairn)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sueter, Rear-admiral M. F.
Womersley, W. J.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingslsy


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. O
Thompson, Luke
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.



Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U Belfst)
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Skelton, A. N.
Train, J.
Margesson.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Amendment made: In page 41, line 21, column 3, after the word "eighty-Seven." insert the words "Sub-section (1) of."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 4th June.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, 29th June, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

MAURITIUS LOAN (GUARANTEE) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported; without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.